ML20094N731
| ML20094N731 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1984 |
| From: | BOSTON EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20094N730 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-1.D.1, TASK-TM PROC-840630, NUDOCS 8408160369 | |
| Download: ML20094N731 (120) | |
Text
.-.
June 1984 Rev.1 r
Detailed Control Room Design Review l
r Program Plan i
l l
i BOSTON Pilgn.m Station EDIS N nen=ra=use F
i Juna 1984
\\
Rev.1 1
Detailed Control Room Design Review Program Plan i
t I
(
BOS1DN I
Pilgrim Station EDISON
w REVISION LOG Revision Pages No.
Date Description Affected 0-10/15/83 Initial issue.
1.
6/27/84 General changes to reflect NRC All coments.
i t
h e
l f
I i
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,?/133
DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES iii LIST OF FIGURES iv LIST OF APPENDICES V
ACRONYMS AND AB8REVIATIONS Vi
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-1 1.1 General Comments 1-1 1.2 Objectives 1-3 1.3 Plant Description 1-4 1.4 Definition of Control Room 1-5 1.5 Control Room Status and Planning 1-6 2.0 CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW PLAN 2-1 2.1 General Comments 2-1 2.2 Planning 2-2 2.3 Review 2-4 2.3.1 Methodology.
2-5 2.3.1.1 Criteria 2-5 2.3.1.2 Operating Experience Review 2-6 2.3.1.3 System Function and Task Analysis 2-9 2.3.1.4 Control Room Inventory 2-11 2.3.1.5 Control Room Survey 2-13 2.3.1.6 Verification of Control Room Function 2-15 2.3.1.7 Validation of Control Room Function 2-18 3.0 MANAGEENT AND STAFFING 3-1 3.1 Detailed Control Room Design Review 3-1 Management Procedure 3.2 Integration of DCRDR with Other Human 3-1 l
Factors Projects 3.3 DCRDR Team Structure and Personnel 3-1 1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 1
1 1
Page 4.0 DCRDR ASSESSENT AND IWLEENTATION 4-1 5.0 DOCUENTATION AND DOCUENT CONTROL 5-1 5.1 Documentation Used to Support the DCRDR 5-1 5.2 Documentation Generated by the DCRDR 5-1 Process 5.3 Documentation System and Control 5-5 6.0 SIM4ARY 6-1 1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 11 i
l
LIST OF TABLES Page-2-1 DCRDR Management Review Team and Advisory Comittee 2-19 2-2 DCRDR Design Review Team Members and Associated Task 2-20 Assignments 2-3 Levels of Effort for DCRDR Activities 2-22 2-4 Questionnaire and Interview Sheet 2-23 Reference Topics i
i i
i I-l l
l 1.7.4/062784
.BECO 14,2/133 iii
LIST OF FIGURES Page i
1-1 Relationship of NUREG-0660 Task Action Items 1-8 to be Addressed 2 Boston Edison Company - Pilgrim Nuclear Power 1-9 Station 1-3 L'ayout of Central' Control Room 1-10 2-1= Overview of the DCRDR Process 2-25 2-2 DCRDR Review Teams 2-26 2-3 Formulation of the DCRDR Task Structure 2-27.
2-4 Example of a Functional (Decision-Action) Flow Diagram 2-28 2-5 Pilgrim Station System Cross-Referenced with E0Ps and SOEs 2-29 2-6 SFTA Data Sheet #1 2-30 2-7 SFTA Data Sheet #2 2-31 2-8 SFTA Data Sheet #3 2-32 2-9 Sample Inventory List 2-33 2-10 Sample Compliance Checklist 2-34 2-11 Sample Reference /Connent Form 2-35 2-12 Example of a Traffic Link Diagram 2-36 2-13 Operational Sequence Diagram 2-37 4-1 Sample HE0 Assessment Form 4-12 4-2 Assessment and Implementation Methodology 4-13 4-3 HE0 Processing 4-14 4-4 Master Log Sheet 4-15 4-5 Selection of Design Improvements 4-16 4-6 Sample Enhancement Suitability Checklist 4-17 1.7.4/062784
~;
BECO 14,2/133 iv
i
- s LIST OF APPEIIDICES
~ Appendix A Qualification ofc: Management Review Team and. Design Review
- Team Members s
./
i
?
i I
1 i
1 l
i i
l l
l l
4 1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 y
L-
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS l
LISTED ALPHABETICALLY BY ACRONYMS l
A Area AC Alternating Current ADS Automatic Depressurization System ANALOG Input Cabinet ANN Annunciator A0 Auxiliary Operator A0G Augmented Off-Gas APRM Average Power Range Monitor l
ASSOC Associated ASST Assistant ATF Above Top of Active Fuel lg ATWS Anticipated Transient Without Scram AUX Auxiliary B0P Balance-of-Plant BWROG Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group CAT Category CCI Containment Cooling & Isolation CM Color Monitor COND Condenser, Condensate CONT Control CPC Central Processor Cabinet CR Control Room CRD Control Rod Drive CRP Control Rod Position CRT Cathode Ray Tube CSCS Core Standby Cooling Systems CSS Core Spray System CWS Circulating Water System DC Direct Current DCRDR Detailed Control Room Desig'n Review 1.7,4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 vi
DI/0C Digital Input / Output Cabinet DRT Design Review Team DWS Drywell Sump ECCS Emergency Core Cooling System EES Emergency Event Sequences E0F Emergency Operating Facility EPRI Electric Power Research Institute ES Electrical System ESF Engineered Safety Feature (s)
EST Estimate (d)
EXPER Experience FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report FW Feedwater FW&R Feedwater and Recirculation HE Human Engineering HED Human Engineering Discreoancy HE0 Human Engineering Observation HPCIS High Pressure Coolant Injection System HVACS Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning System ILC Instruments and Controls INP0 Institute of Nuclear Power Operators-INSTR Instrument; Instrumentation I/O Input /0utput IRM Intermediate Range Monitor JP Jet Pump LDR Leader l
LOCA Loss of Coolant Accident LPCIS Low Pressure Coolant Injection Sys*6 LPRM Local Power Range Monitor LT0GS Low Temperature Off-Gas Syst t MCP Main Control Panel MG Motor Generator M/M Man / Machine MON Monitor 1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 vii
y MSIV Mainsteam Isolation Valve MT Management Team MW(e)
Megawatts (electric)
NMS Neutron Monitoring System NOS Numbers NP0 Nuclear Plant Operator lt NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission OC Operator Console OER Operating Experience Review 0SC Operational Support Center PCIS PCRVICS Primary Containment and Reactor Vessel Isolation Control System PNPS Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station l8 PROC Process PS Power Supply l
PSAR Preliminary Safety Analysis Report RAS Recirculation Actuation Signal RBCCW Reactor Building Closed Cooling Water System RBM Rod Block Monitor RCB Reactor Containment Building RCICS Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System RECIRC Recirculating REQ'O Required RHRS Residual Heat Removal System RPS Reactor Protection System RPV Reactor Pressure Vessel RM Radiation Monitor RNMC Reactor Neutron Mapping control R0 Reactor Operator RRP Reactor Recirculation Pump RRS Reactor Recirculation System RWCU Reactor Water Clean-Up RWCUS Reactor Water Clean-Up System 1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 viii
RWST Refueling Water Storage Tank RX Reactor SBGTS Standby Gas Treatment System lt SIS Safety Injection System SLCS Standby Liquid Control System SOE Selected Operational Event (s)
SP Suppression Pool SPDS Safety Parameter Display System SRM Startup Range Monitor SR0 Senior Reactor Operator SRV Safety / Relief Valve SS Subsystem ST Steam STAT System Task Analysis Team SUPVR Supervisor SW Switch SYS System T&M Test and Monitoring TBS Turbine Bypass System TEMP Temperature TG Turbine Generator TMI Three-Mile Island TP Tape Punch TR Tape Reader TS Turbine Supervisory TSC Technical Support Center 4
- 1. 7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 ix
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 1.ISTED ALPHABETICALLY BY DEFINITION Alternating Current AC Annunciator ANN Anticipated Trip without Scram ATWS Area.
A Associated ASSOC Assistant ASST Augmented Off-Gas A0G l
Automatic Depressurization System ADS Auxiliary AUX Auxiliary Operator A0 Average Power Range Monitor APRM Balance-of-Plant 80P Category CAT Cathode Ray Tube CRT Central Processor Cabinet CPC l
Circulating Water System CWS Color Monitor CM l
Condenser, Condensate COND Containment Cooling & Isolation CCI Control CONT l
Control Rod Drive CRD Control Rod Position CRP l
Control Room CR l
Core Spray System CSS Core Standby Cooling Systems CSCS Detailed Control Room Design Review DCRDR Digital Inout/0utput Cabinet DI/0C Direct Current DC Drywell Sump DWS Electric Power Research Institute EPRI 1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 x
l
Electrical System ES Emergency Core Cooling System ECCS Emergency Event Sequences EES Emergency Operating Facility E0F Engineered Saf ety Feature (s)
ESF Estimate (d)
EST Experience EXPER Feedwater FW Feedwater and Recirculation FW&R Final Safety Analysis Report FSAR Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning System HVACS High Pressure Coolant Injection System HPCIS Human Engineering HE Human Engineering Discrepancy HED Human Engineering Observation HE0 Input Cabinet ANALOG Inout/0utput I/O Institute of Nuclear Power Operators INP0 Instrument; Instrumentation INSTR Instruments and Controls I&C Intermediate Range Monitor IRM Jet Pump JP leader LDR i
Local Power Range Monitor LPRM Loss of Coolant Accident LOCA low Pressure Coolant Injection System LPCIS Low Temperature Off Gas System LTOGS Main Control Panel MCP Mainstream Isolation Valve MSIV Management Team MT Man / Machine M/M Megawatts (electric)
MW(e)
Monitor MON Motor Generator MG Neutron Monitoring System NMS 1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 xi
l
(
Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRC Numbers NOS Operating Experience Review OER Operational Support Center OSC Operator Console OC Power Supply PS Preliminary Safety Analysis Report PSAR Primary Containment and Reactor Vessel Isolation Control PCRVIC Process PROC Project Review Team PRT Radiation Monitor RM Reactor RX Reactor Building Closed Cooling Water System RBCCW Reactor Containment Building RCB Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System RCICS Reactor Neutron Mapping control RNMC Reactor Operator R0 Reactor Pressure Vessel RPV Reactor Protection System RPS Reactor Recirculation Pump RRP Reactor Recirculation System RRS Reactor Water Clean-Up RWCU Reactor Water Clean-Up Systeia RWCUS Recirculating RECIRC Recirculation Actuation Signal RAS Refueling Water Storage Tank RWST Required REQ'D Residual Heat Removal System RHRS Rod Block Monitor RBM Safety Injection System SIS Safety Parameter Display System SPDS Safety / Relief Valve SRV Selected Operational Event (s)
SOE Senior Reactor Operator SR0 1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 xii
Standby Gas' Treatment System SGTS
. Standby Liquid Control System SLCS Startup Range Monitor SRM
' Steam.
ST.
Subsystem SS.-
. Supervisor SUPVR Suppression Pool SP Switch SW System Task Analysis Team STAT
.i System SYS Tape Punch TP Tape Reader TR Technical Support Center TSC Temperature TEMP Test and Monitoring T&M Three-Mile Island TMI Turbine Bypass System TBS Turbine Generator TG Turbine Supervisory TS i
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 xiii
)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL C099ENTS This report describes the Boston Edison Company's plan to perform a detail-ed control room design review (DCRDR) of its Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.
The purpose of this DCRDR is to identify and implement control room design improvements that offer a high probability for meeting plant safety and availability objectives.
The need for control room design reviews has been well documented by the l
NRC as a result of the investigations of the Three Mile Island accident.
The principal areas of concern identified were:
non-compliance of control room facilities with human factors principles, deficiencies in operator presented information, and inadequate operating procedures.
This is part of an integrated plan covering TMI-related actions referenced in the TMI-2 Action Plan, NUREG-0660 and will consider the relationship of the DCRDR with NUREG-0737, Supplement 1:
"Requ'irements for Emergency Re-sponse Capability (Generic Letter No. 82-33)" dated 12/17/82 and "NRC staff review of the BWR Owners Group (BWROG) Control Room Program," (Generic Letter 83-18) dated 4/19/83 including:
o Establishment of a qualified multi-disciplinary review team.
o Function and task analysis to identify control room operator tasks and information and control requirements during emergency operations.
l o A comparison of display and control requirements with a control room inventor.y.
o A control room survey to identify deviations from acceptable human factors principles.
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 1-1
o Assessment of Human Engineering Discrepancies (HEDs) to deter-mine which HEDs are significant and should be corrected.
o Selection of design improvements.
o Verification that selected design improvements will provide the necessary correction.
l o Verification that improvements will not introduce new HEDs.
o Coordination of control room improvements with changes from other programs such as Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS),
operator training, Regulatory Guide 1.97 instrumentation and upgraded emergency operating procedures.
Figure 1-1 is a block diagram showing the relationship of the NUREG-0660 Task Action items Boston Edison Comoany is addressing.
This plan was prepared to be consistent with and responsive to the guide-lines provided in NUREG-0700 and NUREG-0801 as directly applicable to the design and status of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station and good human fac-tors principles.
The Pilgrim Station has already received an intensive review by the BWR Owners Group Control Room Improvement Committee with an associated review by Dr. T. Sheridan and Dr. D. Lanning, human factors consultants of the MIT Group. The results of this review will be used in this program.
This report is in compliance with Generic Letter 83-18 which notes:
"Since the BWROG survey program addresses only the planning and review phases of DCRDR, you are expected to complete the following tasks:
"a.
Submit an individual program plan to the NRC referencing the BWROG Generic Program Plan. The plant-specific submittal should:
1.7.4/062784
~
BECO 14,2/133 1-2
- i. Document the qualifications of survey team members, and number
(
and extent of plant personnel participation.
ii.
Identify portions of the plant's DCRDR not performed in accor-dance with the methodology specified in the BWROG Program Plan.
iii. Discuss your program for prioritization of HEDs, reporting of DCRDR results, and implementation of control room enhancements.
"b.
Complete the BWROG control room survey Checklist Supplement.
"c.
Prioritize HEDs, determine corrective actions, develop an implementa-tion schedule, and report the results of the DCRDR to the NRC.
"d.
Repeat portions of the task analysis using updated plant specific emergency operating procedures to account for differences in the new procedures.
"e.
Update operating experience review."
The Boston Edison Company is committed to this program for identifying and implementing changes to the plant man / machine interfaces that can reduce the probability of operator error thus resulting in an overall improvement in plant safety and reliability.
To this end, Boston Edison Company has committed the necessary resources, including knowledgeable management, technical personnel, and technical specialists from its human factors con-sultant, Torrey Pines Technology, to effect the program defined herein.
1.2 OBJECTIVES Boston Edison Company intends to complete this review in a timely and cost-effective manner to:
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 1-3
o Determine whether the control room provides the system status information, control capabilities, feedback, and analytical aids necessary for control room operators to accomplish their func-tions in an effective, safe and reliable manner.
o Identify characteristics of the existing control room instru-mentation, controls, other equipment, and physical arrangements that may impact optimum operator performance.
o Analyze and evaluate notential problems that could arise from this review.
O Define and put into effect a plan of action that applies addi-tional human factors principles to enhance operator effective-ness.
Particular emphasis will be placed on improvements af-fecting control room design and operator performance under l
abnormal or emergency conditions.
o Integrate the DCRDR review with other areas of human factors inquiries identified in the NRC Task Action Plan.
1.3 PLANT DESCRIPTION The Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station is located on the western shore of Cape Cod Bay in the Town of Plymouth, Plymouth County, Massachusetts.
It is 38 miles Southeast of Boston, Massachusetts.
Bechtel Corporation was the architect / engineer and constructor of the station. The station consists of one 670 MW(e) (nominal) unit.
It is powered by a single cycle, forced cir-culation General Electric Boiling Water Reactor producing steam for direct use in the General Electric 1,800 RPM tandem compound, four flow, non-reheat turbine generator.
Commercial operation of the unit began in December 1972. A photograph of the plant is shown in Figure 1-2.
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 1-4 Ii.
is
i 1.4 DEFINITION OF CONTROL ROOM The control ' room is defined as the following consoles, bench boards and panels including the SPDS displays which are used by the operators for normal and emergency plant operations:
FRONT PANELS 903 Reactor & Containment Cooling & Isolation Bench Board 904 Reactor Water Clean-up & Recircul' tion Bench Board a
905 Reactor Control Bench Board C-2 Turbine Bench Board C-1 Feedwater & Condensate Bench Board C-3 345 K.V., Generator Auxiliary Power Bench '.n
-4 C-170 Post Accident Monitoring Panel, Train A C-171 Post Accident Monitoring Panel, Train B CP-600 H2 Recombiner Panel BACK PANELS 902 Area & Process Radiation Recorder Vertical Board 910 Process Radiation Monitoring Vertical Board 911 Area Radiation Monitoring Cabinet C-4 Feedwater Heaters Control Vertical Board C-7 Containment Ventilation, Isolation & Gas Treatment Vertical Board The DCRDR will extend to other Man / Machine interfaces identified as a re-sult of the analysis of selected events during the System Function and Task Analysis Activity.
i 1.7.*l0027?A PECO 'a ?'!"
l-5
)
1.5 CONTROL ROOM STATUS AND PLANNING The Pilgrim Station control room has been in operation since December 1972 and the. obvious human engineering discrepancies have been found and cor-rected.
"However, we are willing to implement this control room design review to assure that Boston Edison Company has provided a control room whose design and environment adequately supports the operators' abilities to cope with normal operations and degraded conditions.
We have participated actively on the BWROG control room design review com-mittee.
A BWROG control room survey has been performed at Pilgrim Station and will serve as the basis of our program. The following improvements are planned for the control room.
o IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATORY GUIDE 1.97, REV. 2 In order to provide a comprehensive implementation schedule, Boston Edison Company expects to approach the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station / Regulatory Guide 1.97 analysis in a two-phase manner. The first phase would be to compare the Pilgrim Station design base to Regulatory Guide 1.97 criteria, and if modifica-tions are required, provide an implementation schedule that will be consistent with Boston Edison Company's proposed Long Term Program.
Boston Edison Company intends to do an item-by-item comparison between all the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Rev. 2 and the applicable systems and components of Pilgrim Station.
Any deviations found will be systematically evaluated and docu-mented to determine if the deviation is justifiable due to plant-specific design, original design bases, supportive opera-tional requirements, etc.
Any deviations not found to be justifiable will be evaluated to determine what modifications,
'if any, are needed to conform to Regulatory Guide 1.97, Rev. 2.
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 1-6
1 o REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING PLANT COMPUTER Boston Edison Company is planning to replace its existing plant computer to improve the present acquisition / distribution of information in order to effectively support the operator and enhance the Emergency Response Facilities.
We intend to con-sider the various guidance documents such as NUREG-0696, Regula-tory Guide 1.97 (Rev. 2), BWROG Graphic Display System (GDS) evaluation, and the INPO guidelines for an effective SPDS implementation.
We believe the best approach to incorporating the suggested guidance is to base the objective for the SPDS on operator information requirements and augment the Emergency Operating Procedures.
This integrated approach is essential to ensure the final product provides reliable, accurate and, more importantly, usable information for the control room personnel.
Our plan involves the installation of a SPDS that is convenient to the control room operator.
The system will display the information from which the plant safety status can be readily and reliably assessed by control room personnel who are respon-sible for avoiding degraded conditions.
The SPDS display will be designed to incorporate accepted human factors principles.
o UPGRADED EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURES (EOPs)
Our Emergency Response Capabilities Program is based on the E0Ps developed from the BWROG Emergency Procedure Guidelines (EPGs).
We are in the process of preparing plant-specific symptom-based
'E 0P s. These E0Ps will be available for use for the DCRDR.
o CONTROL ROOM SIMULATOR We are planning on purchasing a full-scale simulator to aid in training operators.
This simulator will be located in the new training facility now under construction in Chiltonville, Massachusetts, 1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 1-7
BWR SYMPTOM BASED OPERATING AND CHANGES IN OWNERS GROUP EMERGENCY PROCEDURES REQUIREMENTS FOR f
GENERIC PROCEDURES TRAWING AND STAMG NUREG 0799 NUREG 0899 NUREG 0660,l.C.1 (3),l.C.8 AND 1.C.9)
NUREG 0660,l.A.1 & l.A.2 I
I I
PROGRAM PLAN REPORT ACT N CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW p
NUREG 0660 CRDR NUREG 0737 d L
SUMMARY
{
REPORT J
L J L J L J
L INSTRUMENTATION TO EMERGENCY RESPONSE EMERGENCY ASSESS PLANT FACILITY PREPARE 0 NESS CONDITION (ACCIDENTS)
NUREG 0696 NUREG D654 REG. GUIDE 1.97 NUREG 0814 REG. GUIDE 1.23 SAFETY PARAMETER IMPROVED CONTROL DISPLAY SYSTEM ROOM INSTRUMENTATION NUREG 0660. I.D.2 G
60,1.D.5 NUREG 0835 Figure 1-1.
Relationship of NUREG-0660 Task Action Items to be Addressed w
gn
.vl%g w g f
",J f
dhk ft
~ ~ M f+
tg:-g
- .n t T-f
. gp, U C? ' '
.d -
A
~
- a,
l9
~
, *.s 4
f V
c Lp (f';s*,
.4 ej s >
. f et--
o t
- y' j y g/
g 4
.5 (s
p, z
,f f,
,hli f '
(
$y h&. h....
A,
- (} ;, ;
w 1
.f,3.,,./7i.T-
- L*
i G'
?i (X o
I
. [..
x ( \\s
' 6e,
< <T.g '
J,,
1 g
-4 tN f>
}[
t*
0 s.,
N 9
Q
.l t
m 3
m].
", ? Q
}
'n E
- g. w t'.-. -
. ; + c,'....,
i
^
i em r..
nl * -,
4 m
?$.
lt -
(
l y
,J
,.a, o,a ;t V,p, i
o
+
- I u
};;
\\.
J o*
i s
, /j(,,, y-7..' '. t(AlJ M 4 r&;,.,
f.
c u p Q;,'},f,w-.
4; 1, :,
,'3 j;i V;f :,
p
-f 1.
O R
, Q4.
>t Q
h
- I 'h,,
k
- f c
d,k o
D,
y A.,. Aa ". S,y,,,, ?.?
6.m PS 9
- 4
- +;
i f. M'.
V n.w
. ~
D
- [,.
'g, g
e.
[.f je N
{(
.1
.p; M
2..
4 e
}*.
!3.$
e u
' g p
D u.
f.
~,
u.
ll 9
- \\
a,
!,f '",
'
- L '
',o
?
.L g.
t t
.1 i,
4 t
1 i,
1 p
y p,fh
\\
g.. I ?.
l l-9
, y- ' -
t
/
/
e,
'a JANITOR f
t'[.,
C::
-vg i'
EITCHEN TOILET r-m 1
C175
~
~
l l 902 l 910 l 911l 921 l C4 l913l l
C174 137 138 l
l119l918 lC10l l
l l$16l C8 CS 915 917
- e
^
C2 C1 C3 j*
l
, ',;. }
TUR $1NE HEDWAf tR 4 345 nV GEN &
7 t
CONCENTATE AUX POWE 9 c.'
NUCLEAR INSTR &
g[
THERMAL CONTROL
~.
ENGR ENGR p
,g,
I OESE l O
I V
e 8
COMM g
5 CO MPutt R CON 50LE
- c
a d
OPE R ATO R$
a CONS 0Lt uti NUCLEAR h
b THERMAL B
fyP(R$
WA3N
, ' [* ',
g{COMS CUP:
TE CHNICAL CONTROL
~
e 0
a"=
NiR
?
sr m a
El 0
i l,:
le e
E am l
~
ug CPER a
g
$UPE RVISO R l
~
N
./
nl.
'a
- ~
II N %,,, I!
3 jCm Cm 5-4
.e v
~
2 y.., p Figure 1-3.
Layout of Central Control Room p
- g' E 1-10
. - r, s
p
..'s P
l l
8 g.
a'.
I 2.0 CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW PLAN i
2.1 GENERAL C0feENTS The OCRDR will be conducted principally as recommended by NUREG-0700, NUREG-0801, and Generic letters 82-33 and 83-18.
It will consider the integration of related project requirements that may affect control room human factors discrepancies.
The following related activities and docu-ments will be coordinated with the DCROR:
o Develooment of emergency operating procedures (reference item I.C.1(3), I.C.8, and I.C.9 of NUREG-0660).
o Development of a safety parameter display system, (reference Item I.D.2 of NUREG-0660; also NUREG-0696, Functional Criteria for Emergency Response Facilities).
o Upgrading of emergency support facilities (reference Item III.A.1.2 of NUREG-0660 and NUREG-0696, Functional Criteria for Emergency Response Facilities).
o Development of improved control room instrumertation (reference l
I tem I.D.5 of NUREG-0660).
o Changes in requirements for training and staffing (reference Items I.A.1 and I.A.2 of NUREG-0660).
l 0 Implementation of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2.
o Evaluation criteria for DCRORs (NUREG-0801),
o Methodology for evaluation of emergency response facilities (NUREG-0814).
o Human factors acceptance criteria for SPOS (NUREG-0835).
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 2-1
The overview of the DCRDR processes is shown in Figure 2-1 which is a cony of Exhibit 3-1 of (NUREG-0700). This Program Plan describes the following:
o Planning (Section 2.2) o Review (Section 2.3) o Management and Staffing (Section 3.0) o Assessment and Implementation (Section 4.0) o Documentation and Document Control (Section 5.0) 2.2 PLANNING The planning phase covers relevant actions completed to date or planned as noted herein.
Boston Edison Company organized an Executive Team to guide, monitor and imolement this program.
The Executive Team has made provisions for desig-nated alternates to key positions.
The functions of this team correspond to those recommended for management in NUREG-0700. They are to:
o Assure proper relationships and awareness between this project and other NUREG-0660 efforts.
o Assignment of key Management and Design Review Team oersonnel (see Figure 2-2).
o Approve detailed program plan.
I o Provide resources required to carry out the Program Plan, o Identify and assure that plant operational constraints and pro-ject requirements are properly coordinated.
1 1
o Monitor DCRDR progress.
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 2-2
o Review and approve control room improvement recommendations.
-o Establish and initiate the control room improvement program.
A menagement review team has been established to monitor and approve the results of the Design Review Team.
All assessemnt and implementation recomendations will be approved by the management review team.
A senior j
human factors specialist will assist the management review team in execut-ing its function. Table 2-1 shows the composition of the management review team.
The Management Team has analyzed NUREG-0700 in relation to this plant f acility and resources and has defined the program described herein.
The major activities are shown in Figure 2-3.
The planning activity includes, in addition to the above items, the following:
o Definition of all man / machine interfaces and related activities to be reviewed, o Definition of objectives.
o Definition of Management Team role.
o Formulation of the task structure for the program (see Figure 2-3) and corresponding personnel assignment (See Table 2-2).
lt o Development of administrative procedures to govern this review.
To facilitate this review, project management authorized the construction of a full scale, realistic mock-up for an extensive review by human f actors and systems specialists.
1.7.4/062784 BEC0_14,2/133 2-3
Boston Edison Company has assigned engineering and operations specialists to the Design Review Team that has the responsibility for the technical scope of the DCRDR. Lead members of this Team and the tasks to which they are assigned are shown in Table 2-2.
This table indicates the strong a
participation of human factors specialists in all major talks and partici-I pation of the key Design Review Team members in most activities.
t j
2.3 REVIEW j
The review phase is basically the investigative phase.
This effort is organized into specialty task groups per Figure 2-3.
Specialized person-nel are selected as required for each task group from Boston Edison Company and Torrey Pines Technology.
Human factors specialists will provide a major role in all tasks and assignments will be made for cross fertilization of the various functional task groups. This concept will be i
extended into the management review team and accordingly the project
)
engineer will be assigned to the Management Team.
If necessary, General Electric will be asked to provide system design criteria.
Approximately l
15 engineers and key operations personnel will participate in the detailed reviews and evaluations of the task groups.
The following types of personnel are included:
I o Nuclear systems designers and analysts o Human factors consultants o Control board designers o Instrumentation and control engineers o Computer and data management engineers o Plant operators o Training personnel o Licensing personnel The levels of effort for the personnel relied upon most heavily for the g
DCRDR are summarized in Table 2-3.
l 1.7.4/062784 RECO 14,2/133 2-4
1 l
L 2.3.1 Methodology Each task team will initially develop guidelines and, where necessary, procedures for executing the task.
These guidelines or procedures may be modified to optimize team operatinn. Each topical report covering the full scope of each task activity will include the guidelines and/or procedures used. In general, guidelines and/or procedures will consider the following as applicable:
o Objectives o Team membership and assigned duties o Methodology, including flow chart of all activities required to complete the task objectives o List of constraints, (if any) o Reporting requirements o Special instructions.
2.3.1.1 Criteria The Design Review Team will prepare a control room design review criteria which will be included in the Criteria Report. This effort will stress the human factors considerations and requirements for the control room.This document will describe the function of the control room and plant systems related to external communications.
It will also address one of the major post-TMI-2 concerns, the systems and human factors features for Annun-ciator/ Computer / Safety Equipment interfaces relative to prioritization, consistency, and overall integration.
The following topics will be included in this document.
A.
Introduction B.
General C.
Control Room Layout and Features 1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 2-9
~
D.
Main Control Panels Layouts and Features
)
E.
Human Engineering Guidelines (BWROG specific adaptations of NUREG-0700, Section 6, and other guidelines not covered in other major topics)
F.
Special Guidelines Associated with the Application of Human Factors Engineering to Control Room Design G.
References Criteria will be developed considering:
o Those human factors engineering practices that have general industry acceptance and have resulted in proven performance, o Pertinent NUREG documents, BWROG documents and Regulatory Guides.
o Established criteria from general industry, EPRI, INPO, govern-ment sources, Boston Edison Company conventions, standards and practices.
2.3.1.2 Operating Experience Review The Operating Experience Review Task Team (0ERT) will review pertinent operating experience documents and conduct a survey of control room opera-tions personnel.
In addition to typical human factors operator concerns, the OERT will emphasize systems operability.
It is anticipated that valuable input will be developed for use by the other task groups, particu-larly the System Function and Task Analysis Team (STAT).
Specific atten-tion will be placed on those normal plant procedures that experienced operators identify as having the greatest potential for human factors engineering enhancements.
This information will be used in the selection process for those events to be analyzed by the STAT.
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 2-6
L A special meeting will be held to review the methodology used in the pre-paration of operating procedures.
Sample procedures will be reviewed and comments submitted to the operations department. The OERT will perform the following:
A.
Meet with key operations and training personnel to determine pertinent information on training, assigned duties, anticipated work scheduling, and the availability of the various classes of operations personnel.
B.
Prepare questionnaires and interview forms. See Table 2-4.
C.
Provide for review by the Management Review Team..
D.
Evaluate the data obtained from completed questionnaires by operations E.
Interview olant personnel.
F.
Evaluate and summarize observations, including human engineering observations (HE0s) with recommended corrections.
Interview sheets and questionnaires will be prepared considering a review of the results of the BWROG control room survey interviews, the special knowledge the control room operations personnel have concerning potential control room problems and positive features as determined by their experi-ence.
The " interviews will identify any aspects of the control room equipment layout and general design which are considered by the operators to provide I
opportunities for improvement relative to their decision-making processes.
Questions will be focused on those details of the control room environment which are projected to indicate notable success, f ailure and near-miss situations based on past experiences.
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 2-7
i The respondents will be advised that the information obtained will not be used for performance evaluation purposes.
Project procedures will assure that comments by operations personnel will remain anonymous.
The respondents will be encouraged to speak openly about problems from their past experience or perceived potential problems and suggested solu-tions.
The following NUREG-0700 topics to be included in this operations personnel review are:
1.
Workspace and Environment 2.
Communications 3.
Annunciator Warning Systems 4.
Controls 5.
Visual Displays l
6.
Labels and Location Aids 7.
Process computers 8.
Panel Layout 9.
Control /Disolay Integration
- 10. Procedures, Manning and Training
- 11. Control Room Equipment and Storage.
Other kinds of human factors concerns such as those related to employee programs and other questionnaires developed by industry and research groups in previous projects.
The interviews will be structured to allow for additions of material developed during the interview.
Data evaluation will be done imediately following completion of the inter-view period to assure maximum benefit from the interview. The data evalua-tion results will be forwarded to the Management Review Team for review.
The results of this work will be evaluated and summarized. A re-review of areas of significant changes may be required.
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 2-8
2.3.1.3 System Function and Task Analysis (SFTA)
The system function and task analysis (SFTA) will be a structured review and analysis conducted according to the guidelines presented in NUREG-0700 and will be performed by the SFTA team members identified in Table 2-1.
The results of the review and analysis were assembled into data sheets and diagrams showing operator tasks, actions and movements required for use in the Verification and Validation phases of the DCRDR.
This work will be done considering the following:
A.
Document Review The initial activity in the SFTA will be to review documents related to plant design and operations as they pertain to the DCRDR. The primary documents considered are:
l o FSAR o System Operating Procedures I
o Emergency Operating Procedures o Operating Procedures o Technical Specifications o P& ids The E0Ps will be plant specific and symptom-oriented and will:
o Adequately address basic plant safety functions, o Have a format adequate for defining operator tasks.
o Have a format containing operator decision-points (See Figure 2-4).
B.
System and E0P Data Collection This activity will document the system and E0P information for use in the event selection process as well as for general use in the DCRDR.
The format shown in Figure 2-5 will be used which contains the following characteristics:
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 2-9
w o System - Identifies major systems presented in the FSAR.
o E0P
- Identifies system addressed in the E0Ps that required some form of operator attention related to that plant basic safety function.
o SOE
- Identifies systems ultimately addressed in the Selected Operating Event.
C.
Selection of Events (SOEs) for Analysis To select the events for analysis, the following criteria will be considered by the SFTA team:
o Utilize a broad range of control room functions, o Require time-dependent action by the operator.
o Require multisystem operation and interaction by the
- operator, o Represent potentially high-stress situations for the
- operator, g
The SFTA Team will use an iterative process involving Figure 2-5, the E0Ps and selection criteria as follows:
o Select an initial set of Initiating Events using Figure 2-5 and selection criteria.
o Determine the E0P flow-paths for each Initiating Event.
o Evaluate systems addressed on each E0P flow-path against selection criteria and revise the initiating event and/or the E09 flow path accordingly, o Evaluate operator decision-points on each E0P flow-path against the selection criteria and add to each initiating event the assumption of system failures as necesssry.
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 2-10
D.
SOE Data Collection In this activity, the SOE-specific data will be collected for input to the data base.
This will consist of the following major activities:
o Operator Task Data - fomulation of task description, requirements and alternate tasks from the E0P flow-paths for each SOE.
o Operator Step Data - formulation of step description and I
identification of control room devices that the operator could use for each step on the E0P flow-path for each SOE and an estimate of related system status based on an estimate of SOE elapsed-time.
o Operator Area of Responsibility.
The photomosaic mockup of the control room will be used for the collection of operator step data.
E.
SOE Data Sheets Samples of the data sheets to be used are shown in Figures 2-6, 2-7 and 2-8.
2.3.1.4 Control Room Inventory An inventory of controls, instrumentation, displays and other equipment on the control room man / machine interfaces will be performed.
This inventory will establish a reference data base for comparison with the requirements established by operator task analysis.
The following will be done in performing the inventory:
lt 1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 2-11
+4 o Line Nisaber J
A unique sequential-line number will be arbitrarily assigned to each item (or collection of items treated as a unit) on the panels to facilitate accountability' an'd quality in compiling the inventory. These same numbers will also be on labels affixed to the full-scale mock-up.
These line,numDers will be unique and as such will be used exclusively with 'the Control Room Survey and Systems Function and Task Analysis. The line number will be used to identify instruments not complying with NUREG-0700 Section 6 guidelines and will be listed in any HEOs generated.
The SFTA task will also use these numbers to out'line the opera-tor steps, o Instrument Numbers Instrument numbers will be assigned to the majority of the items in the inventory in order to identify the type of instrument in question.
{
o Service Description Information will be included in order to either create a rion-existent label or to render more definitive the information given in the label; P& ids /the Instrument Index/FSAR/GE documents will be consulted at various times for more definitive informa-tion.
o System Number System numbers will be assigned based on a use of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station System MR Index.
i o Manufacturer /Model This data will be collected if available, o Range Units These values will be used during the SFTA and validation effort j
of the DCRDR.
i 1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 2-12 l
o Minimme Scale Increment These values will be used during the SFTA and validation effort of the DCRDR.
o Board Number The numbers will be equivalent to the panel numbers, g
o Panel ID The mock-up will be divided into sections, and the location of the line numbers will be noted to facilitate location of instru-ments at a later date.
An example of an inventory sheet is shown in Figure 2-9.
2.3.1.5 Control Room Survey A survey of the full scale mock-up and the Pilgrim Station Control Room will be performed to document compliance with the human factors criteria document.
The use of a realistic mock-up will permit completion of the bulk of the checklist items developed. Those items that cannot be checked, on the mock-up such as control room workspace, voice-assisting communica-tion devices, control room noise, illumination, use of protective clothing and other environmental considerations, will be completed using the control room in actual service conditions.
The objectives of the Control Room Survey will be to:
o Identify characteristics of the control room instrumentation and physical arrangements that may impact operator, performance, o Determine whether the control room provides the system status I
information, control capabilities, feedback, and analytical aids necessary for effective plant operation.
o Provide _ recommendations for correcting observations based on good human factors principles.
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 2-13 a
l The Control. Room Survey will be conducted using nine checklists to be developed from the Criteria Report (essentially to Section 6, NUREG-0700 Reference 6). The checklists to be developed will cover:
6.1 Control Room Workspace 6.2 Communications 6.3 Annunciator Warning Systems 6.4 Controls 6.5 Visual Displays 6.6 Labels and Location Aids 6.7 Process Computers 6.8 Panel Layouts 6.9 Control-Display Integration and will use the same number and title contained in NUREG-0700, Section 6.
Each checklist will contain a title page, a detailed description of the criteria and a reference / comment form to allow the observer to expand on I
any potential deficiencies discovered in the survey.
See Figure 2-10 and 2-11.
The basis for each criteria judgement will be established in the Criteria Report.
The Criteria Report will identify NUREG-0700, BWROG or INP0 quideline criteria used for this survey, By performing the Control Room Survey in this fashion, every item addressed in Section 6 of NUREG-0700 will be addressed.
Any items identified as not meeting the guideline criteria will be docu-mented as Human Engineering Observations (HE0s).
Each HE0 will contain a brief description of the observation, the potential operator error and a recommended good human factors engineering fix.
~
l An identifying system will be adopted to assist separating the HE0s by checklist item. The first numbers or letters before the dash will identify the checklist or DCRDR task. The last three numbers are arbitrary, sequen-tial numbers.
If the last three numbers are followed by ap A, B, or C, it means that this is a continuation of the HE0 description.
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 2-14
The procedure for processing the HE0s generated by the Control Room Survey l
1s discussed in Section 4.0.
A computer program will be developed using a data base management system for storing, reporting and sorting of the HE0s.
The program will produce individual forms as shown in Figure 4-1 for cach HE0 generated.
It can also sort on any of the categories or words within a category.
For in-stance, if it is desirable to search for all of the HE0s regarding a given instrument, the program can search in the "HE0 Description" section for the instrument in question and then link it to the HE0 number or any other item of interest.
2.3.1.6 Verification of Task Performance Capabilities A.
Verification of Availability / Accessibility The verification of the availability and accessibility of control l
room controls and displays will be accomplished by comparing the list of devices required in the SFTA with the list of available devices in the control room inventory.
The criteria considered in this evaluation is from Accessibility of Instrumentation /
Equipment, Section 6.1.1.1 of NUREG-0700.
The SFTA data will be compared with the control room inventory using the file linking option of the DBMS.
This allows a direct comparison of the required devices for the SFTA versus the available devices from the inventory for the evaluation of availability.
A listing of all devices that are located outside the primary operating area will be obtained from the DBMS for the evaluation of accessibility.
All items not satisfying the above criteria will be recorded as HEOs.
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 2-15 p._..J '
A
B.
Verification of Suitability The verification of the suitability of control room controls and displays will be accomplished by comparing the requirements for the devices used in the SFTA with the devices specifications from the control room inventory.
The-criteria considered in this evaluation is from Section 6.5.1.1.
Information to be Displayed and Section 6.5.1.2 Useability of Displayed Values of NUREG-0700.
The SFTA control and, display requirements will be compared to the inventory control and display specifications (e.g. switch posi-tions, instrument range, minimum scale increment, etc.) by using the file linking option of the DBMS.
All devices not satisfying the evaluation criteria above will be documented as HE0s.
C.
Verification of Function / Task Grouping L
Prior to evaluating the diagrams, an initial evaluation will be made to determine if controls and devices are grouped by task, by function, and by importance or frequency of use.
The major criteria considered in this evaluation is from Section 6.8.1.1 and 6.8.2.1 of NUREG-0700.
The data sorted by operator step will be used to perform this evaluation.
From a DBMS listing of the sorted data, all the tasks that are performed on more than one control panel and all functions that are performed on more tbn one panel will be recorded.
Also, any frequently occurring operator tasks and steps will be recorded.
A review and evaluation will be made of all the items recorded and will consider the fo] lowing:
- a. Steps which occur near the boundary line between the two panels may be within the same workspace (devices may be on separate panels but still grouped together).
l 1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 2-16
i
- b. For overall system monitoring tasks it is considered accept-able for the steps to occur on more than one panel,
- c. Non-emergency SOEs (plant startup) are not constrained by time or stress as is the case for emergency events.
Grouping of tasks on two adjacent panels may be considered acceptable' for non-emergency SOEs.
- d. Tasks or functions occurring on more than one panel may be acceptable if more than one operator is involved,
- e. Tasks or functions occurring on two or more adjacent panels may be acceptable if one or more of the panels is a very small or short panel,
- f. Tasks which have steps that occur on both a console and the corresponding but separate vertical panel are acceptable if the vertical panel step is an observation of an instrument or
{
status light that can easily be seen from the console posi-tion.
All items still not satisfying the panel contents criteria af ter considering the above allowances will be recorded as HEOs.
D.
Verification of Layout Arrangement The traffic link diagrams provide a comprehensive visual review of the panel device layout (and to some extent the operating procedures) with regard to efficiency of movement for the opera-tors. The major criteria considered in this evaluation are from Section 6.8.1.1 of NUREG-0700.
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 2-17
/
Traffic link diagrams will be prepared (See Figure 2-12).
From these diagrams, the traffic paths showing high number.of operator trips will be identified for review.
These are indications of devices that are not located on - panel s to minimize operator movement from panel to panel.
_ Also to be identified are the traffic paths showing long distances traveled by the operators.
These are indications of devices that are not located for effi-cient control panel operation and minimum operator movement.
The selection of high frequency or long distance paths from the link diagrams is primarily a matter of judgement and depends on the.SOE.
Guidelines will be established to identify high fre-
[
quency paths:
E.
Verification of Panel Contents The operational sequence diagrams. provide a visual method of evaluating the operator movement within the control panels.
The major criteria considered in this evaluation is from Section 6.8.2.1 of NUREG-0700.
Operational sequence diagrams will be prepared as shown in Figure 2-13.
The diagrams for each SOE will be reviewed with regard to the selected criteria.
2.3.1.7 Validation of Control Room Function A validation will be performed as part of the SFTA activity to detennine whether the control room operating crew can perform allocated functions l
within defined procedures.
The bulk of this effort will be performed on the mock-up using walk-through/ talk-through techniques.
Scenarios will be devised using the plant-specific, symptom-based E0Ps that were used in the SFTA effort.
The tasks to be performed will be directed by the SFTA specialist and monitored by the SFTA specialist and a television camera.
Data gathered during this phase will be compared to a Validation /Verifica-tion checklist to determine if any HEOs exist.
4 1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 2-18
i TABLE 2-1 DCRDR Management Review Team and Advisory Connittee Management Review Team W. J. Armstrong R. E. Grazio S. Dasgupta 1
Advisory Committee 4
P. Mastrangelo J. W. Ashkar t
i 1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 2-19
TABLE 2-2 DCRDR Design Review Team Members and Associated Task Assignments C. H. Minott Project Manager W. Babcock, Jr.
Principal Investigator S. F. Luna Project Engineer Sr. Human Factors Specialist System Function and Planning Task Analysis C. H. Minott W. Babcock, Jr.
W. Babcock, Jr.
D. Hughes
(
S. F. Luna J. L. Rogers R. Sabeh C. S. Brennion K. N. Taylor Operating Experience Review W. Olson E. P. Gagncn W. Babcock, Jr.
S. F. Luna K. N. Taylor W. R. Arnold S. F. Luna R. C. Potter R. Sabeh F. Scaletta Control Room Survey Verification W. Dabcock, Jr.
E. P. Gagnon S. F. Luna F. Scaletta R. Sabeh W. R. Arnold l
W. Welch E. P. Gagnon Validation W. Arnold W. Babcock, Jr.
Control Room Inventory W. Olson D. Hughes W. Babcock, Jr.
E. P. Gagnon F. Scaletta E. P. Gagnon l
BECb 2
3 2-20
TABLE 2-2 (continued)
DCROR Design Review Team Members and Associated Task Assignments 1
I.
Assessment Documentation W. Babcock, Jr.
C. H. Minott D. Hughes W. Babcock, Jr.
C. S. Brennion E. P. Gagnon S. F. Luna S. F. Luna R. Sabeh R. Sabeh W. R. Arnold E. P. Gagnon i
l l
I l
(
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 2-21 l
- -. - - =
h Table 2-3.
LEVELS OF EFFORT HUMAN NUCLEAR FACTORS REACTOR I&C SYSTEMS DCRDR PHASE / TASK ENGINEER OPERATORS ENGINEERS ENGINEERS 1
Planning 220 100 120 Review:
I
'?
N Operating Experience Review 220 120 40 40 Control Room Survey 200 40 Task Analysis 40 80 160 660 Assessment 120 80 160 Correction /Ef f ectiveness 120 80 160 40 Documentation 40 100 100 Project Meetings 80 20 20 40 l
l
f TABLE 2-4 QUESTIONNAIRE AND INTERVIEW SHEET REFERENCE TOPICS
- The following will be covered in the interview sheets and questionnaires to determine positive and negative features and suggestions for improvements:
o The role of the operations personnel in emergency situations.
[
o Those normal functions and tasks that the respondents consider should be included in the system function and task analysis.
o Major concerns and strengths of related plant operations.
o Techniques for maintenance of high vigilance.
How boredom will be prevented. How proficiency will be maintained.
o Views of engineering and engineered product necessary for plant operation, o Overall management policies - how perceived by interviewees, o Views of projected job assignments (work loading - too much, too little?).
1 o Views of job satisfaction or dissatisfaction (long-range job l
objectives).
o Views of personal training received to date - adequate? Sugges-tions for improvements, o Views of the control center complex - strengths and weaknesses.
o Views of the control room complex in the general areas noted in NUREG-0700 Appendix C and Section 3.3.2.2 for normal and abnor-mal situations.
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 2-23
r-TABLE 2-4 (continued) o Discussion of emergencies.
i o Discussion to determine special techniques useful in plant control.
h o Views of the engineering of the products required for plant operations, o Views of external elements - NRC and press.
o Views of projected shift staffing.
I o Relationship -with fellow workers, maintenance, and other asso-
- ciates, o Discussion of main concerns, major strengths or weaknesses, and improvements that are most sought for, o View of projected workload and difficulties in performing assignments.
o Views of projected relationship with other groups that effect overall plant operations, o Views of training.
o Views of administrative procedures.
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 2-24
- 4. MPt4AlthG iart AtteCt St vets G R Aiht!
4 AV Aft &S4 t anrm gig F
Pp5645a t est MSHs4 84 VltW P90411IB AatA5 Wuan Pt Am 3 SV5f tII f ueCis04 Rivite
& $C8169U14
&IA&E ANALVlab
- 3. Com1 AOL ROOM mytNIOGY L
Sueviv 60thfif V CONTROL A0008 tasvt h f 0AV mytu)OAV elst f uescisons OPR AAlise6 4
l PL A50thit A550CIAf to mlet 4
aN5t Aulet ti$
BA&Mgygmy (GUIPIltBI l
ANAL YZE I ASE5 IO IDLhf 88 V settCI ANALVik DUNCis00s$
Ev5f taus t M
0"tsalle6 tvttf 5 m
T0 60Emitp V CA 4
SPetst V astSI A) e I
$USSTsitaE5
- 0E Am4tV3:5 OrlaATOR IASES 4 C08tISOL 800tB
$UAvtV CL A5515 V E
III
+
AL40CA fs0N guavtV CA f 04 N
I""'0I Of f ueC110ml Conf 0AdeAmCt to set 8
Gut 0t LIAB15 AI ING ggggg N
CoedP0ntei ttytt
$UesIAse0AA0 Un EnLtutRAL$
6 vat 10AIt0N Of C04I Act A00at t vitef4CAtt0h 05 IA5h IUI6CIleMS A4014IGGRAfte Ptaf 0A0BAmCt CAPatiLITets PL Af 0ASANCE CAPA44LITit$
00esPA A6 I A5E IAIA W41E Aho I At E en$la 40tpP 0956 AVAleGits gNAOUGN0 rte
+
Ne uplatta0LN11 AI'EO IVIIII
,,$$gg,5UPt t I0 mve nibSV PROC &Ouat5 fl0ul tit eIE8 fussCT5001
$NItGAAIBON gggg$$ggg g g'IIDW OSEE AVAlteful C0thPILE ALL DRIPL E git h T A gf E I E, f
I gi I g 30 AR L OAO.
VilsetV apt 0UACY IAIE Pthf 0 San at AL Of th5IS AGUIP.
Seit AvAllom$
litit ElesutAIl0N IntAts pf 40A inoeveouAL IPeostless ie IE AIIIIEI I A5E h4 USASill1Y IOR IASESS Figure 2-1.
Overview of the DCRDR Process
REVIEW AND APPROVE EXECUTIVE REVIEW TEAM e PROGRAM PLAN
- FINAL REPORTS e DESIGNIMFLEMENTATIONS MANAGEMENT REVIEW TEAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE BOSTON EDISON COMPANY REVIEW AND APPROVE STAFF ASSISTANT-VICE PRES NUCLEAR 0PERATIONS
- PROGRAM PLAN NUCLEAR ENGINEERING DEPUlY MANAGER GROUPLEADER CONTROLSYSTEMS
- CRtTERIA CHIEF OPERATING ENGINEER GROUP LEADER SYSTEMS AND SAFETY ANALYSIS
- DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS TORREY PINES TECHNOLOGY e REPORTS e DESIGN lMPLEMENTAT10N HUMAN FACTORS SPECIALIST Y
ER
{
a DESIGN REVIEW TEAM DEVELOP AND EVALUATE BOSTON EDISON COMFANY e PROGRAM PLAN PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATO R ECK STS e SYSTEM FUNCTION ENGINEERING,0PERATIONS AND AND TASK ANALYSIS LICENSING PERSONNEL AS REQUIRED e SURVEYS e INVENTORY GENERAL ELECTRIC e WALK THROUGH/
1 TALK THROUGH i
ENGINEERING AS REQUIRED e PROCEDURES l
e OBSERVATIONS j
TORREY PINES TECHNOLOGY j
PROJECT ENGINEER ASST. PROJECT ENGINEER PREPARE-SYSTEMS SPECIALIST HUMAN FACTORS SPECIALIST
- DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION LICENSING PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS Figure 2-2.
DCRDR Review Teams
EXECUTIVE REVIEW TEAM h
ADVISORY MANAGEMENT COMMlITEE O
REVIEW TEAM 4
DESIGN REVIEW TEAM 1 r 1 r 1 r ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION REPORTS AND REVIEW PHASE J L PHASE DATA MANAGEMENT to 1 r 1 r OPERATING DESIGN REVIEW TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS m
EXPERIENCE REVIEW CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONALSTUDIES 1 r 1 r CONTROL ROOM MANAGEMENT REVIEW TEAM m
9 SURVEY APPROVES FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1 r 1 r CONTROL 800M EXECUTIVE REVIEW TEAM 7
INVENTORY APPROVES FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS SYSTEM FUNCTION LINE ORGANIZATION m
AND TASK ANALYSIS IMPLEMENTS MODIFICATIONS 1 r l
1 r VERIFICATION AND VAllDATION FINAL REPORT Figure 2-3 Formulation of the DCRDR Task Structure
l lit. OPERATOR ACTIONS (Continued) 8.
INITIATE action as indicated STEP 111.8 CAN NO REACTOR POWER LEVEL BE DETERMINED YES IS YES REACTOR POWER LEVEL ABOVE 3%
NO l
ALL CONTROL YES RODS INSERTED PAST POSITION 04 EXECUTE GENERAL PLAN NO OPERATING FROCEDURE 2.1.6 REACTOR SCRAM CONCURRENTLY h0 SUPPRESSION YES
\\
POOL TEMPERATURE d
ABOVE 80*F
{
00 NOT EXECUTE GENERAL PLAN OPERATING j
PROCEDURE 2.1.6..
EXECUTE PROCEDURE i
REACTOR SCRAM E0P 04 PRIMARY I
CONTAINMENT CONTROL TEMPERATURE CONCURRENTLY I
EXECUTE PROCEDURE L
E0P 02 - APV CONTROL l
POWER CONCURRENTLY E0P-01 Page 3 of 39 Rev.O Figure 2-4.
Example of Functional (Decision-Action) Flow Diagram 2-28 j
's.
t
(:
i i.-
(.
E0P SOE System No.
01 02 03 04 05 06 07. 08 1
2 3
4 5
_1 X.
X X
X X
X l-
-2 X
X X
X 3:
X X
4 X-X X
5 X
6 X
etc.
i t
l l
'l i
Figure 2-5.
Sample for Pilgrim System Cross Referenced with the Plant E0Ps and SOE.
2-29 r.
i-PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Pag 3 1 DCRDR l SFTA SOE4: LARGE BREAK LOCA IN PRIMARY CONTAINMENT WITH LOSP DATA SHEET #1: OPERATOR PRIMARY & ALTERNATE TASKS l
ALTERNATE OPER TASK or STEP TASK or STEP TASK
-SOE PROC STEP DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENT DESCRIPTION 4
.10.T: Monitor / adjust plant parameters during normal plant operation i 1005 power l
4 1.00 T: Respond to numerous See subtasks See subtasks alarms and systems auto actions for E0P entry conditions 4
1.05 ST: Determine RPV RPV water level Initiate RPV flooding-water level (EOP-07) 4 4
1.20 ST: Determine DW DW pressure &
Assume DW press & temp pressure and temperature entry conditions exist temperature 4
1.50 ST: Determine SP level SP level Assume SP level entry conditions exist 4
E0P-01 2.00 T: Verify Reactor Rod position &
Initiate reactor power scram scram system control thru RPV water status level (EOP-02) &. boron injection (EOP-08) 4 E0P-01 3 00 T: Verify reactor Reactor power, Initiate reactor power power indication full,intermed.
control thru RPV water
& lo range level (EOP-02) & boron injection (EOP-08) 4 E0P-01 4.00 T: Verify control rod Control rod Initiate reactor power position position control thru RPV water level (EOP-02) & boron injection (EOP-08)
Figure 2-6.
SFTA Data Sheet #1 2-30
)
PILG IM NUCLEAR POWER STATION DCRDR - SFTA Page 1 SOE4 LARGE BETAK 1.0CA IN PRIMARY CONTAltRfENT WITH IASP DATA SHEET f2: OPERATOR STEPS IN TASK SEQUDICE ALTERNATE OPER TASK or STEP TASK or STEP DEVICE TASK or STEP SYSTEM BOARD PANEL SOE PROC STEP DESCRIPTION REQUISEMENT USED DESCRIPTION NO NO NO OPER 4
.10 Ts Monitor / adjust plant 0
parameters during normal plant. operation
- 1035 power 4
1.00 T: Respond to numarous See suhtasks O
See subtasks alarms ani systems auto actions inr EJP entry conditions 4
1.05 ST: Determine RPV RPV water level 0
Initiate RPV flooding water level (EOP-07) 4 1.0T Observe RPV water
< 136 INCHES 1174 45 905 3-3 OP1 n,
e level above TAF LJ He 4
1.09 Observe RPV
< 136 inches IIT3 45 905 3-3 OP1 water level above TAF 4
1.11 Observe RPV water
< 136 INCHES 1132 9
C171 B
OP2 level above TAF 4
1.13 Observe RPV water
< 136 INCHES 439 9
C170 B
OP2 level above TAF 4
1.20 ST: Determine DW DW pressure &
0 Assume DW press & temp pressure and temperature entry conditions exist temperature Figure 2-6.
SFTA Data Sheet #2 d
P!LCRIM NUCl.F.AR POWER STATION DCBDR - SFTA Page 1 SOEis LARGE BREAK LOCA IN PRIMART CONTAINHENT CITH LOSP D ATA SilEET f }: 'HF0itMATIt'] & CONT;.3L, REQUIRD1ENT vs AV AILARt.F.
SERVICE HIN OPEH TASK or STEP TASK or STEP DEVICE DESCRIPTION, SCALE SYSTEM BOARD PANEL SOE PROC STEP DESCRIPTION RDQUlhEMENT USED RANGE, UNITS INCR NO NO NO OPER 4
.10 T: Monitor / adjust plant parameters taring normal plant operation
- 1005 power 4
1.00 T: Respond to numerous See sobtasks alarms and systems auto actions for EOP entry conditions 4
1.05 ST: Determine RPV RPV water level water level 4
1.07 Observe RPV water
< 136 INCHES 1174. REACTOR WATER LEVEL to 45 905 3-3 OP1 level above TAF (INDIC) + LABELS FOR
$3 VARIOUS REF LEVELS GJ 00
-50 TO +50 INCH (ZERO @ 127 INCH ATF @ RATED PWR& TEMP 4
1.09 Observe RPV
< 136 inches 1173 REACTOR WATER LEVEL to 45 905 3-3 Ort water level above TAF (INDIC)+ LABELS FOR VARIOUS REF LEVELS
-50 TO +50 INCH (ZERO # 127 INCH ATF @ RATED FWR& TEMP 4
1.11 Observe RPV water
< 136 INCHES 1332. TORUS LEVEL (/ FUEL 5/5/5 9
C171 R
OP2 level above TAF ZONE /LOMO RANCE RECORDEH) NOTE ZERO OF INSTR @ 77 5 INCH ATF TL,R:0-300/FZ,BLU:-150 To
+150/LR,C:-50 TO+50 INCHES 4
1.13 Observe RPV water
< 136 INCHES 4 39. TORUS LEVEL (/ FUEL s/5/5 9
C170 B
OP2 level above TAF ZONE /LONO RANGE RECORDER) NOTE ZERO OF INSTR @ 77.5 INCH ATF TL,R:0- 300/FZ,BLU r-150 TO
+150/LR.G -50 T0+50 INCHES 4
1.20 ST: Determine DW DW pressure &
pressure and temperature temperature Figure 2-8.
SFTA Data Sheet #3 A
Ni;E 1 MIC p
LI f Ic5ftUH117 3*ttICs 5 f 5 T E *1 N4:074CTURER REIGE SCALE 804RO PATEL CJ slu tie R 3 !iC 4 I P i l d's flUM 1 E R E90EL U;ITS ICCR NUMBER 10 p
128.
IC4-3
( T u t B I *18 3 t ts:H 42 P41staan
,C2 14/14 604%") C1 4 N ?rJ 4C I 4 I 30 5 )
O 12).
21-1022 byrai5 WLvi JrENING 51 FOX 8090 0-100 PERCfNT 2
C2 la JACK 805 O
133.
Zl-3021 NiCM "RiS$ #EG HND SI 150-1050 50 C2 la p
WHE*L PJ5 p
131.
28-3020 NYC1 P4555 9(C att47
=3:5000 0-100 PERCEt4T 2
C2 14 P 15 i T4 3'15 O
132.
II-3014 (LEtt nas55 se; 5tqV9 51 50180R0 0-100 PERCENT 2
C2 la HIR 835 O
133.
21-3333 DRF55 C3NT90L POS 51 950-1010 PSI 2
C2 14 O y
(
Q 136 Il-3G23 LO40 L11IT *ISTON P15 El F9E9040 0-100 PERCENT 2
C2 la 135.
Z1-3024 SPEE) t L O 4 0 C H A NG *.
- 91 8019040 0-100 PERCENT 2
C2 is P15 i
136.
- l-3049 Stra1 C4EST **ESS I
F015040 0-2 PSIG X 1000 0.01 C2 la c.
.l 137.
PI-3052 TU21 15T Sit 3' PRESS I
0-700 P$IG 25 C2 15 O
138.
VII-9 no, t ; gre VLv agev I
G-R LIT 85 C2 15 SE4T 07 TIN O
13).
(21-3 es 3.
2 (17) VLv nacy*
I G-R LITES C2 19 Q
12 A T 3't 4 3 N O
140 s2I-1J nl. t c4To vLv amov-1 G-R LITES C2 14 si s e v II e O
Figure 2-9.
Sample Inventory List O
9
7 COMMUNICATIONS 6.2 VOICE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS 6.2.1 GUIDELINE COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST N/A Yes l No Referones/ Comment l
6.2.1.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR m W 7 # it p a w $ $
sg63MMQjfMuf di
@mp$efeiiN 3
a ME633%s$hhh VOICE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS gd prMp R: $ g% M f M j Q
@m w
Generally there are six varieties of voice com-gg fib getpisfg yt My h
i?td{5$%
munication systems found in control rooms:
@j),fhp[f h$g}{4DNh6M T ME N Spjffdf6 Ccnventional-powered telephcnes, sound powered
{W f
telephones, walkie-talkie radio transceivers, fixed-pjgg$(pgmeatg band UHF transceivers, announcing systems, and gig) -:@M MNsW point to-point intercom systems. Human facters M 16 E W#SN T~ 4 g$m A 4w,f y%
3 w Dgg $$$ )M,y requirements scecific to each type of voice ccm-1%@
hy s
4p drau @g n@g$p 34
^!d 2
d e,!S Wi9 E
munication system will be censidered Individually %:
n my ex m
in Guidelines 6.2.1.2 through 6.2.1.7 while 6.2.1.8 ti d4. son.
SM g{if;p>?jjp.gg Q.M%
In g%y.wam,.~.gywwp.g twe will address voice ccmmunication by the cperator bg
$gggggggggggg&
Nga$
wearing an emergency mask. The folicwing re-Qgg @$%
2 bN M h;u; gat M
- .w!g dRi$$1% W W Wl&gs@.p s quirements are relevant to ecmmunication systems yem w2 in general.
R2,, p s e; :s3 wheweoce l
a.
INSTRUCTIONS-Instructions should be pro-vided for use of each ecmmunicatien system, including suggested alternatives if a system becomes incperable.
b.
PERIODIC MAINTENANCE TESTS-These should be performed on all communication systems to ensure that the system is normally operative and effective under changes in ambient ncise levels that may have occurred since the last check.
c.
EMERGENCY MESSAGES (1) OUTGOING-Priority procedures :heuld be established for the transmission of emergency messages frcm the centrol recm by any of the communication i
systems.
(2) INCOMING-Precedures shculd be estab-lished forhandling communications during.
an emergency and these procedures must be known by all operators.
Figure 2-10.
Sample Compliance Checklist 2-34
Figure 2-11.
- ENSON BOSTON DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW CONTROL ROOM SURVEY REFERENCE / COMMENT FORM OBSERVER:
DATE:
PAGE _ OF LOCATION:
GUl0ELINE CRITERIA ITEM NO.:
HE0 REFERENCE NO.:
SUBPANEL REFERENCE / COMMENT ELEME N O.
CO OLE NO.
l i
l l
l l
OIAGRAM/ PHOTO NO.:
l
v c
]
\\.
/
JANITOR
- Q KITCHEN T0tLET 4
-,\\
b
.If C175 C174 l913l l 902 l 910 l911l 921 l l
l 937 936 C4 P
.)..
l l916l l919l918 lCIOl l
l 915 917 C8 C5 fE
_ f.f.
g7y{c..
j FEE 0 WATER &
M5 KV GEN &
j C2 C1 C3
'2'~
'8.
c-TURBINE CONDENSATE AUX POWE R f
- /
~~#/
NUCLEAR INSTR &
d b-~d THERMAL CONTROL ENGR ENGR 1 DESK l
/ )g U
r u
m 8
COMM g
5
/
COMPUTE R CONSOLE d
i OPERATORS a
m (
CONSOLE MET NUCLEAR h
\\
NL THERMAL B
l T
MAIN I YPER$
g{i"'
- UP _
TECHNICAL STAFF a
1 CONTROL e
g lE i
0 aco" 53 Ij 0
g !!/
/
e og OPE R.
g SUPERVISOR l
3 ii h 3
Cm Cno J
- g..
~.
o" 3(.-
,..a 4
4 Figure 2-12.
Example of a Traffic Link Diagram 2-36
a
^
1
.____m e
_. m _
^
_m.
_____m.
,c8>--ay Q$$
qqq qqqq qqqq e
es HEMME
=enessusum e
N 8858 3 5135 6 e
1_ =_
UftssNE GEfeERATOft Figure 2-13.
Operational Sequence Diagram 1
2-37
3.0 MANAGEENT AND STAFFING 3.1 DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW MANAGE E NT PROCEDURE o The management planning activity is described in Section 2.2.
o The basic organization and functions are shown in Figure 2-2.
o The Management Review Team will meet throughout the program as required to perform its basic functions.
Meetings will be called by the Principal Investigator, and directed by Boston Edison Company.
In addition, it may be necessary to hold special meetings to meet scheduled requirements.
o The OCRDR consultant will be available for these meetings as needed to facilitate completion of meeting agenda items.
t o Minutes of all meetings will be taken and recorded.
3.2 INTEGRATION OF DCRDR WITH OTHER HUMAN FACTORS PROJECTS The overall relationship of NUREG-0660 task action items are shown in Figure 1-1.
The human factors aspect of the basic activities shown in Figure 1-1 will be reviewed by the Management Review Team working with the Boston Edison Company licensing group.
3.3 DCROR TEAM STRUCTURE AND PERSONNEL The basic DCRDR team structure and personnel are defined in Figure 2-2 and Tables 2-1 and 2-2.
Resumes of assigned personnel are included in Appendix A and are consistent with the review criteria of NUREG-0801.
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 3-1
4.0 DCRDR ASSESSENT AND IFLEENTATION 4.1 OBJECTIVE The objective of the Assessment and Implementation Task (AIT) will be to evaluate the HE0s resulting from-the program, assign categories, recommend appropriate corrective actions and methods for verifying and validating corrective actions, and document the process.
4.2 TASKS The following Tasks will be done by members of the Assessment Team:
o Develop background information for this task from a review of the pertinent NRC documentation, NUREG-0737 Supplement 1,
NUREG-0700 and NUREG-0801, this Program Plan, all stsnmary reports issued by the Design Review Team and all the HE0s submitted to the AIT group for review. Other references such as EPRI NP-2411, Human Engineering Guide for Enhancing Nuclear Control Rooms will be reviewed.
In addition, the following information is required during the assessment meetings:
1.
Technical Specification Safety Limits 2.
Operating Limits 3.
Limiting Conditions for Operations 4.
LERs.
o Prepare criteria for this task.
i 1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 4-1
o Compile all HEOs (computer printouts) by subject and by category in descending order, e.g., all work space and environment with
' Category A, B, C and D, etc.
o Review the HE0 writeups, evaluate and categorize the HEOs, and -
choose the implementation recommendation.
o Determine the methodology for the verification-and validation of the significant HE0s, using the verification and validation procedure.
o ' Process the HE0/HEDs and documentation associated with this task. Team members will initial and date the HED.
o Review, comment and sign-off of each HE0/HED by the Management Review Team.
l 4.3 CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFYING HEOs The DCROR process encourages the reporting of all observations, recognizing that the AIT team will be staffed with personnel qualified to assess the significance of each observation.
Assessment will be based on an analysis of the impact of each observation on operating crew performance (workload) and overall plant safety and reliability.
Those observations that are judged to have a high potential impact on plant safety and reliability will be categorized as HEDs per the classification rated below and the non-significant observations will be classified as HE0s.
The four categories used in the categorization process are defined below:
\\s J
I i 1.7.4/062784 M
-BECO 14,2/133 4-2 s
?
b i
r3
1.
Category A HE0s Associated with Documented or Potential Errors.
Category A includes HE0s which are known to have previously caused or contributed to an operating error as documented in a Licensee Event Report (LER) or other historical record, or as established by the interview (or questionnaire) responses of operations personnel, or which have the potential to cause an error of'high safety consequence.
2.
Category 8 - HE0s Associated with Safety Condiderations.
Category B includes those HEOs determined by documentation or by potential to be of low safety consequence or to cause an unsafe condition.
I 3.
Category C - HE0s Associated with Availability or Reliability Considerations.
Category C includes HEOs which have been assessed and determined to have minimal potential for causing or contributing to a human error but impact electrical generating capabilities.
4.
Category D - HE0s that are Minor or Non-Significant.
Category D includes any observation that has been evaluated and determined neither to increase the potential for causing or contributing to a human error nor to have adverse safety con-sequences.
4.4 ETH000 LOGY The following describes the general approach for perfonning the tasks listed in Section 4.2.
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 4-3
4.4.1 Meetings The AIT team leader will schedule meetings consistent with the overall DCRDR schedule.
Figure 4-1 shows the HE0 report format.
The left half will. be completed by the Design Review Task Teams with an initial HE0 category to facilitate the assessment process.
It is recognized that the initial categorization will be made without an analysis and is provided strictly to assist the AIT team.
Each HE0 will be reviewed and evaluated.
The team leader will be respons-ible for recording the results of the review and evaluation on the right side of the HEO.
Any member may include a dissenting opinion as an attachment to an HEO.
4.4.2 HE0/HED Categorization Figures.4-2 through 4-6 graphically show this process.
The following describes this process:
1.
The team will review the entire HE0 as presented followed by an open discussion to assure complete understanding of the observa-tion. The Human Factor's Specialist will be available to answer questions during this phase of the assessment.
In this process, the team may request clarification of the wording of the HE0 description.
This will be covered in the comment section with i
reference to an attached rewording.
2.
The team will then determine which of the four categories (A through D) to assign the HE0 under review.
The process to be used is shown typically in Figure 4-3.
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 4-4
Figure 4-3 includes a branch where HEOs may be reconsidered due to the cumulative or interactive effects of multiple HE0s.
Otherwise, HEOs could be discounted as non-significant and dropped out of the assessment and. improvement process.
Effects of combined Category HE0s will be considered during the selec-tion of a correction method.
Category D HE0s are optional and may be corrected at Boston Edison's prerogative and will not be ignored.
3.
The next step is to log the HE0/HED.
Those observations that are categorized A through C will be assigned an HED neber to be logged on a master log sheet (see Figure 4-4).
All HEDs in Category A will be nebered consecutively, - i.e.,
A001, A002, etc., to facilitate collation of data and final DCRDR reporting.
All observations classified as HEDs by both the AIT Team and the l
Management Team must be included in the improvement process.
HED nebers will be assigned based upon an " alpha-nmeric code, with the first digit being keyed to the NUREG-0700, Section 6 topic; i.e., Workspace = 1, Communications = 2, Annunciator = 3, etc. The next letter designates the category (A through D) and the last three digits are assigned in sequence within each of the four categories.
4.4.3 Corrective Actions The team will then review the suggested corrective action noted in each HED. Again, the Human Factors Specialist will be available to clarify, if l
necessary. The team will then select a correction method. See Figures 4-5 and 4-6.
l 1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 4-5
i l
1.
Se' ection of Correction Method Four possible -correction methods are available to the review team: enhancement, design changes, design. improvement studies, and procedure changes.
Each HED will first be screened for further action as follows:
a.
Enhancement b.
Design Change
- c.. Design Improvement Study d.
Operating Procedure Change e.
Administrative Procedure Change.
To select enhancement when a design change is more appropriate will not be critical.
Should either enhancement, design change or improvement study, or a combination of methods prove inade-quate or inappropriate, procedure changes may be chosen for correcting or mitigating HEDs.
k During the selection of a correction method, the review team will consider all correction methods. Where several methods are proposed, the reasons for selecting a particular method will be documented.
This documentation will be attached to the basic HE0/HED form.
~
While a particular correction method for an individual HED may appear appropriate, an alternative correction method may be more appropriate when the HEDs are grouped. After all HEDs have been analyzed for correction, the review team will re-evaluate all l
similar HEDs selected for a particular correction method, to ensure that the method chosen is appropriate.
l 1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 4-6 i
f HED correction by ' enhancement, design change, design study,'or procedure changes is described below.
In each case, analysis will be weighted towards using the judgement of the review team members in developing recomendations.
Any special analyses employed in the development of recommendations will be docu,-
mented as identified by an attachment.
It. should be noted that Boston Edison Company training department reviews all plant changes per requirements of 10CFR50.
The following approaches will be considered:
o Enhancement Corrections Development of enhancements will proceed soon af ter com-pletion of the selection process, since an enhancement typically provides a significant improvement quickly at l
low cost.
In some cases, the enhancement may be imple-i mented as an interim solution while a long-term design solution is being developed.
In this way, the dilemma of providing a near-term solution as well as an integrated control room design in the long-term will be resolved.
Figure 4-6 gives some examples of types of enhancements.
o Design Corrections Design corrections are those corrections developed through planned design efforts.
The AIT's responsibili-ties will be to produce preliminary conceptual design recommendations.
The specifici ty of a recommendation will vary with the type and extent of the HED, A recom-mendation will specify:
Problem Statement Scope of Work j
Design Objectives.
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 4-7 y..
v g
,1
--w-
-f yc---9y
,r 3--,-w
- e
-7g.
p.
--.u-.-
-r--
e e y s*-g--T-g=
Recomendations will be based on preliminary design analyses performed by the AIT.
Analyses may include alternate solution identification, comparison and selec-tion for-the case of a simple, isolated HED. Preliminary analysis will provide a preliminary - conceptual design requiring further design analyses and engineering.
o Design Improvemenu Studies The correct resolution to some HEDs may require correla-tion with other HEDs to assure an integrated correction.
(For instance labeling color, type size, wording, loca-tion,etc.)
In these instances, a design improvement is the corrective method to assure that all parameters are l
included in the solution, and the AIT will recommend that a study be done.
o Procedure Correction Changes to existing procedures will be considered as a i
possible means of correcting an HED.
Indeed, the source of the HED may be found in the way the procedure was originally written.
Correction of an HED by enhancement or redesign of the panels to conform to a procedure could introduce other potential errors.
Procedure revisions may also be very effective for correcting HEDs where the procedure is not the root cause of the HED.
Design limitations may dictate using less than optimal type of control (or placement of a control) to accomplish a particular function, resulting in an HED.
Procedures may then be used to compensate for the con-trol's deficiency.
I 1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 4-8
'eg--g
--97 e
y y-y-
w---
y--- - *
,-w-a-
++4wi
..g-w-e
l The types of -procedure changes chosen to correct or mitigate the effects _ of an HED may include, but are not limited to:
1.
A change in procedure format 2.
Improved quality of reproduction 3.
1.arger or more legible type -
4.
Inclusion of cautionary statements 5.
Re-ordering operator tasks.
The AIT team will recommend changes to procedures.
The actual changes will be made in accordance with Boston Edison Company Procedures.
2.
Management Team Review and Sign-Off After each HE0/HED has been reviewed by the AIT with recommenda-k tions/ revisions and the appropriate priorities and HED ntsnbers assigned, the management review team will review each HE0/HED.
This review will provide management input into the DCRDR and assure overall coordination of the various segnents of the corrective actions suggested by the AIT.
Management Review Team members may request clarification, change priorities, categories or implementation schedules.
It is recommended that the Principal Investigator be present for this review.
Any revision to the HE0/HED category will require a new HED number, and will be recorded by the "REV:" entry on the HE0 assessment format, with a "1" and the date, indicating that a first revision has been made, etc., and that a new HED ntsnber has been assigned.
For record purposes, the original HE0/HED will have the new number recorded under the Management Review section, as "See new HED #
The original HE0/HED will then be attached to the revised HED, and the " Support Material Attached" box on the revised HED.
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 4-9
When the team has finished all discussion / revision of the HED, the chairman will sign and date the form.
Implementation of the corrective actions agreed upon then takes place through normal plant change routines.
3.
Results The results of the HE0 Assessment and HED Improvement process will be recommendations for changes to the control room design or to the operating procedures intended to reduce the potential for operator error.
HEDs recommended for study will be closed out when the implementation study results are complete.
There will be two types of design recommendations.
One type will be detailed enhancement correction recommendations for
[
surface treatments requiring l imited financial and time re-sources.
The second type will be design correction recommenda-tions for the implementation of a systems engineering design project to develop detailed design corrections; i.e., correc-tions requiring more significant financial and time resources.
Further studies may result in significant evaluation, analysis, and firm designs to resolve the deficiency prior to implementa-tion.
Where the design approach would be inappropriate for correcting a given HED, recommendations for changes to procedures may be made.
These recommendations may include substantive changes in the procedures and/or simple modifications to the format.
Recommendations for improvement will be supported by documents produced throughout the assessment process.
This information may be useful in prioritizing implementation of recommendations or to justify a decision not to implement the recommendations.
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 4-10
4.4.4 Verification and Validation The - approach used to verify and validate the design corrections will be that described in the verification and validation procedure.
4.4.5 Documentation l
Documentation of the assessment and improvement process will be consistent with procedures and will include records of HED/HE0 assessment.
The l
records will be necessary for historical purposes and will be required for subsequent steps in the process; particularly correction method selection.
Correction analysis will be documented in the form of design recommenda-tions, design improvement studies or procedure changes.
The recommenda-tions will be supported by engineering drawings, photos, conceptual
{
sketches, calculations, or other suitable materials, as necessary.
Special emphasis will be placed on documenting justifications not to correct a significant HED and to record dissenting opinions, including the Human Factors Specialist.
l l
1 l
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 4-11
(
e HLMAN ENGIEERING OBSERVATION ASSESSnENT OBURVITION TECmICAL REVIEW CHAIRWN DATE PLANT: Pilgrim W S I R. Sabeh I HEDf: 19001
[] Concur.
l EVALUATOR i
TASK: Control Room Survey l
l HEO#: 6.1.001
[] Concur with Comment / Note.
CL: 6.1 CL ITEM: 6.1.1.Ib DATE: 2-10-84 REV:
[] Reevaluate & Resubmit for Following Rosson:
CL TITLE: Control Room Worlispace HED CATE00RY: B Concent/ Note / Reason:
BOAfD TITLE: Cntet Vent.
BOARD #: C7, 915 & 917 l
l KO DESCRIPTION I
l QJIDELIE. ACCESSIBILITY OF IF6TRtMN!/EDGpWNT l
Instrumentation requiring contims mnniter ng t.y operators during eewrgency operations: Panel C7: Dryw ie tes.a-at.res. #1358, 1361 Containment. purge and vent cent.co', #1412.1413, 1447,1448,1449,1450,1451,1452.1453,1454,1455,1453, 1472.1473 Torus tenperature, #1427,1428 Panels 915,917: Scram solenoid lights Overhead monitor - cannot be conveniently vie =ed by the panel 905 operator. This obsarvation is supported p by DER-Sel and OER-802 N [] SLPPORT MATERIAL ATTACED l
ll POTENTIAL OPERATOR ERROR (S)
MM4A ENT REVIEW CHAIRWN DATE-Ercessive operator movement results in a delay to respond to an energency.
l [] Concur.
l l [] Concur With Conment/ Note.
l! [] Reevaluate & Resubmit for Following Reason:
-=
REC 0hA D OED REVISION
- Comnant/ Note / Reason:
6 l
Relocate the.nstrumnets and controls to the front panels.
l Adjust overhead monster for convenient operator viewing.
I i
REC 0hADOED IhPLEENTATION l
l I
PRIOR TO OR AT EXT RERJELING 4
AT CONVENIENT GUTAE AT EARLIEST OPPORTlNITY NON-hWOATORY l
Figure 4-1.
Sample HE0 Assessment Form
t
{
DESIGN REVIEW TEAM r- - - - - - +
- PERFORMS REVIEW 4- - - - - - -
y l
- PREPARES HE0 FORMS IMPLEMENTATION g
i j
l l
l OBSERVATIONS g
i u
l I
i l
l MANAGEMENT RE'/IEW TEAM
=
(
- ASSESS I
OBSERVATIONS I
HE0
- CA REJECTED ASSESSMEU 0BSE TIONS h
g ROCISS
- DIRECTS ANALYSIS FOR CORRECTIONS p-----
)
g
- RECOMMENDS DISPOSITION 1
I HED'S i
EXECUTIVE REVIEW TEAM L__-_-__
. neview geo.S
J ASSESSMENT
- REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS ASSESSMENT
(
REJECTED APPROVED LEGEND:
HE0 - HUMAN ENGINEERING OBSERVATIONS HED - HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY Figure 4-2.
Assessment and Implementation Methodology 4-13
L ASSESSMENT FACTOR CMTLAIA
(
CATES.
ASSESSMENT FACTOR IMPLEMENT l
l nEvuw PaoCESS osSEnVAnoNSA Men SMETY m0PomMCE - uMSut Pnommy CoNomou on TECu SPEC votanom S
SutTY con 8mEnAnom NEAn TEnM C
nEUASIUTY/AVARASEDY CoNV. ouTASE l ASSESS o0SERVAnoNS T J '8
"'8" nt
_./
nS Su PDTENTIAL 40PonTANCE SM TV TII 8
con 8mERAnom No l
l PoTENTIALLY nS UNSAFE I
CoNomeN No SIGMFICANT YES FMA80CIAL toss No YES INTERACTIVE on CuMULAnvE ANALYS13 No Fon ConnECnom tow SAFETY YII POTENTIAL IMPUCATioft FoM ERROR HenoRtoW No TNo acoMMENo vt*
C ComwCnoNS VES INTERACTIVE No R CUMULATIVg o
No coCUMENT Figure 4-3.
HE0 Processing 4-14
DCRDR HE0 DISPOSITION LOG I
HE0 CL ITEMS BOARD NO.
CATEGORY NO.
COMMENTS i
ASSESSMENT TEAM LEADER DATE Pg of Figure 4-4.
Sample Master Log Sheet 4-15
[' HUMAN ENGINEERING 0!$CREPANCIES \\
TO BE ANALYZED FOR CORRECTION
}
(FROM THE HED SELECTION PROCESS) i r ANALYSIS FOR CORRECTION SY ENHANCEMENT 1 >
CORRECT WITH YES ENHANCEMENT
{
)
NO 1
< r ANALYSIS TO 10ENTIFY DESIGN IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES AND SELECT RECOMMENDEO SOLUTION DEslGN L
IMPLEMENT e FUNCTION ANALYSIS DOCUMENT
)
4+--
_________q l
e ALLOCATION I
MAN I
MACHINE l
I e VERIFY ALLOCATION -------*
+
l
- SELECT PREFERRED e
DESIGN ALTERNATIVE I
+
l
- VALID ATE DESIGN ----------e3 FULLY SCHEDULE NOT CORRECTED _
IMPLEMENTATION J Ti NO NN ASSESS EXTENT OF CORRECTION u EN 4
I PARTIALLY 00CUMENT COR RECTED ir
'SCUWENT DOCUMENT O
IMP ION Figure 4-5.
Selection of Design Improvements 4-16
)
ENHANCEMENT:
DEFINITION -CONTROL ROOM IMPROVEMENT BY SURFACE TREATMENT TECHNIQUES.
ACTION WORDS - ADD, REMOVE, REPLACE, RE-LOC ATE, MODIFY, ADJUST, ORGANIZE.
E X A M PLES:
- L A B ELS:
CONTROLS FUNCTIONS DIS PL AYS ANNUNCIATOR TITLES SYSTEMS
-DEMARCATION & MIMICS:
LINES ZONES SYMBOLS COOING (COLOR, SH APE, ETC) 1
-ENVIRONMENT:
FURNISHINGS V ENTILATION ROOM COLOR (S)
LIGHTING CASINET COLOR (S)
NOISE LEVEL TEM PERATURE TRAFFIC PATTERN (S)
FURNlTURE LOCATION
- DIS PL AYS:
RECORDER PAPER f. SCALE INOICATOR SCALES
-PROCEDURES VOLUMES:
ORG ANIZ ATION COLOR CODING LABELING l
- H ARD WA R E:
HANDLES METER FACES KNOBS Figure 4-6.
Sample Enhancement Suitability Checklist 4-17
5.0 00CUENTATION AND DOCUENT CONTROL
)
5.1 DOCUENTATION USED TO SUPPORT TE DCRDR Boston 5dison Company has established a library to assist the o
Design Review Team.
The documents-contained therein are the latest plant construction documents consistent with Section 2.4.1 of NUREG-0700.
o The consultant has also established a reference library of per-tinent human factors documents including many of those listed in NUREG-0700, as well as relevant documents generated in other
,DCRDRs and relevant EPRI and INPO documents.
5.2 DOCUENTATION GENERATED BY THE DCRDR PROCESS The following basic documents will be submitted to the NRC for approval in this review:
o Program Plan Report (this document).
j o Executive Summary Report, which will address methodology, review findings, and implementation.
The following documents will be generated in support of the review.
o Criteria Report o OER Report o SFTA Report o CRS Report o Inventory Report I
o Compilation of Observations & HEDs The following format is proposed for the Executive Summary Report:
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 5-1 i
DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW PILGRIM STATION 1.0 ' INTRODUCTION 1.1 General Comments 1.2 OCRDR Purpose and Objectives 1.3 Plant Description 1.4 Definition of Control Room 2.0 DCRDR PLANNING, METHODOLOGY 2.1 Planning
- Summarize from Program Plan.
- Include Management, Staffing & Documentation 2.2 Methodology 2.2.1 General I
- As required---
2.2.2 Criteria Development
- Summary info mainly from Criteria Report.
- Describe NUREG-0700, BWROG & INPO guidelines revi ew.
2.2.3 Data Base Management System
- Describe use, specific data bases & interactions.
- Some info from Program Plan.
I 2.2.4 Operating Experience Review
- Summarize info from Operating Experience Review Report
-Describe interactions with other DCRDR tasks.
l 1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 5-2
2.2.5 Control Room Survey
- Summarize from Control Room Survey Report
- Use of mock-up.
2.2.6 Control Room Inventory
- Summarize info from Inventory Report.
- Use of mock-up.
- Describe data base record definition.
2.2.7 System Function & Task Analysis
- Identify plant-specific, symotom-oi lented E0Ps per basic IPG Safety functions:
- Reactivity control
- Core heat removal
- Containment integrity
- Fission Product control
- Identify plant systems (per FSAR) covered by E0Ps.
g
- Describe SOE selection criteria & SOEs selected (iterative process wtih E0Ps).
- Identify plant systems (per FSAR) covered by 50Es.
- Describe SOE data collection & data base use &
record definition.
- Describe SOE selection criteria & SOEs selected (iterative process with E0Ps).
- Identify plant systems (per FSAR) covered by SOEs.
- Describe SOE data collection & data base use &
.aecord definition.
- Describe data sheets & diagrams (SFTA output) used for analysis, Verification & Validation:
- Data shet*.; I thru 5.
- Traffic link diagrams.
- Operational sequence diagrams.
- Some info f rom Program Plan.
- Use of m ck-up.
1.".- 462784 BECL 14,2/133 5-3
2.2.8 Verification
- Some info from Program Plan.
- Describe interaction of:
- Control room survey checklists
- SFTA data sheets & diagrams.
- Criteria matrix.
- Use of control room inventory.
- Describe interaction with Validation on task basis.
2.2.9 Validation
- Some info from Program Plan.
. Describe method:
- Walk / talk-through used.
- Task bases using SFTA data sheets.
i
- SOEs & selected tasks evaluated.
- Limited to primary operating area (mockup).
- Recorded on Video.
- Describe operators involved.
I 2.2.10 Assessment
- Summarize info from Program Plan.
- Use of moctup.
3.0 DCRDR RESULTS
/
3.1 Human Engineering Observation Summary
- Describe HE0s by task, checklist, assessment action &
category.
- Show cross-reference to BWROG HEOs.
- Identify separate DCRDR task reports. '
3.2 Human Engineering Discrepancy Summary
- Describe HEDs by HE0 category.
- Describe significant HEDs.
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 5-4
4.0 DCRDR CONCLUSIONS 4.1-HED Corrective Actions & Schedule
- Describe corrective actions to be taken & schedule.
- Describe studies to be conducted to determine corrective action & schedule.
I 4.2 Remaining Work
- Describe task data base status.
- Describe renaining work for:
- All DCRDR tasks.
- Integration plan covering NUREG-0737, Supplement 1.
4.3 Methodology of procedure for future changes 5.3 DOCUENTATION SYSTEM AND CONTROL The Design Review Team will develop a data base which will be reviewed by the Management Review Team.
This data base will consist of computerized printouts and hard copy files of cross-referenced information including:
o Listings of reference plant documents used, o Listing of human factors referenced documents used, o The program plan report (this document),
o Pertinent documents defining requirements for the DCRDR.
o The control room criteria report.
o The outputs of the individual task groups (see Figure 2-3).
o Minutes of meetings.
o All findings, HEDs, and dispositions as processed, o Executive Summary Report, o Topical DCRDR Reports, o Pertinent correspondence.
1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 5-5
6.0 SUPORRY The Boston Edison Company considers that this program plan for the control room design review of the Pilgrim Station is extensive, complete and con-sistent with the pertinent document noted herein.
The program is in progress and it is our intention to comply with the content of this Program Plan. The Boston Edison Company reserves the right to make changes in its best interest and will notify the NRC of all planned or executed deviations.
3 1.7.4/062784 BECO 14,2/133 6-1
APPENDIX A Qualification of Management Review Team and Design Review Team Members l
1
WILLIAM R. ARNOLD STAFF ENGINEER TORREY PINES TECHNOLOGY IU BER DESIGN REVIEW TEAM PROFESSIONAL SPECIALTY Reactor protection and instrumentation systems:
design and analysis, operation, startup, trouble shooting, and equipment qualification.
EDUCATION BSEE, University of Texas, 1958.
Graduate Courses, Electrical and Nuclear Engineering.
EXPERIENCE Work on the control room design review for the South Texas Project Nuclear Generating Station.
Participated in all phases of the review including control room survey, system function and task analysis, and annunciator review.
Also, participated in subsequent redesign of control panel layouts for this project.
Review of qualification data for safety-related equipment for PWR projects.
Responsible for assuring that the data packages met the general requirements of NUREG-0588 and the specific requirements referenced and that the equipment represented is satisfactory for use in a harsh environment.
Review of safety-related plant control and protection system logic and operation to confirm that components important to safety are properly classified for PWR projects at Bechtel.
Field investigation and solution of reactor protection system trips and transients during startup of Fort St. Vrain station.
Liaison on operational and licensing aspects with utility operations and with NRC.
Field engineer in successful construction and startup of all internal and adjacent external reactor instruments, pressure test and hot flow test support, and control rod drive checkout for Fort St. Vrain station.
Completed design and documentation for licensing of reactor plant protection systems.
Accomplishments included logic design, cabling, customer liaison and review of specifications and layout for compliance with applicable NRC design criteria.
Electrical design of aerospace launch control hardware and systems.
PRorESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Registered Control Systems Engineer, California, 1975.
060184 BECO 14,2/136 A-1 j
WILLIAM J. ARMSTRONG STAFF ASSISTANT-OPERATIONS BOSTON EDISON COMPANY MEMBER MANAGEMENT REVIEW TEAM EDUCATIO:'
Dorchester !!ich School - 1948 Wentworth Institute 1957-1958 Peterson School of Steact Engineering - Various time periods in preparation for tass 1st Class r.ncineer'a License.
Penn State Triga Facility - Two-week course - Completed 16-week Nuclear Power Preparatory Training Course week BWR.
Technology course. 12-week BWR Simulator course, and 3-montri observation period, includine 2 months at. Mili. scone durtn*
power test p ro g ram.
!! ass License - 1st Class Firet:an - 1957 Mass License - 3rd Class Firerin - 1957 Mass License - 2nd Class Engineer - 1961 Mass License - 1st Class En::incer - 1961 NRC SRO License
- 1971-1976
?! ass !*ucicar Power Plant Senior Supervising Engineer
- 197:-Present WORK EXPERIE!!CE 6/1/83 - Present Easton Edison Cormany - Staff Assistant - Operations As Staff Assistant - Operations, responsibic for assisting
" ice President-Nuclear Operations in developin:; :nd i= ole-centing policies governin:; station performance and keepinn the Vice President cognizant of the status of plant operations.
Also responsible for ensuring the necessary support for plant operations enrough coordinating coc=unications between Nuclear Operations. Nuclear Encineering, and Quality Assurance, other Company or::anizatioru, contracters and vencors. Adtisinn the Vice President ';uclear Operations on all significant issues ana representing him at meetings, conf erences, etc., as necessary.
Special Projects ".anacer. Pilgri:a 9/82 - 5/S1 Loston Edison Company Nuclear Power Station l
As Special Projects Manacer, responsible fo'r various problems that need to be corrected in order to icorove the overall efficient operation of the plant. These incluce development and implementation of tauks such as:
(a)
Salt Service Water and Condenser Sea Water Mussel l
Control Program (b) Overall raowaste process returbishment (c)
Removal off site of various amounts of radwaste sludge (d)
Development of an on-Hite Dry Uaste Treatment racility to reduce volume of low specific activity material s (c, '..
..,,. _ - : y ; ;, g r,p.,, ~,c +q ;,_. _ _,, w.x.,
s.
,..,,.; p,..
g,, y.
.,.3,,..
9/82 - 5/83 (c:nt'd)
(e) As a member of NEPEX Nuclear Dispatch Task Force have the responsibility of resolving ongoing problems that exist between the operating nuclear units and NEPEX present day procedures 6/81 - 9/82 Bosten Edison Company - Deputy Manager, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station As Deputy Manacer, responsible for the Technical, Radiological and Radwastu Operations Groups.
Continued involvement with boiline water reactor owner's Group pertaining to Control Room issues. Also was a nenber of INPO Committaa on control room review. These committees are involved witn:
- Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS)
- Control Room review
- Emergency Operating Procedure guidelines
- Implementation of NRC document SECY 82-1113 1
9/80 - 6/81 As Deputy Manager, responsible for plant operatien. maintenance, security and fire protection.
10/77 - 9/80 Boston Edison Company, Staff Assistant to the Manager of Nucicar Operations As Staff Assistant, have been responsible for the f o l'.owing :
Member of Company Central Safety Committee Nuclear Operations Department representative in the Company Blackout Study Committee Developed the Planning & Scheduling of Refueling and Maintenance Outage No. 3 Directly involved in the Group establishing the Cor.canv's position regarding "Pire Protection Feview A.P.C.S.B.9.5.1.
Member of the Bargaining Committee for the Company involving contract negotiations Involved in all Nuclear Operations Department Union grievances as per Article XXXII I (b) of the Contract Llork directly with various members of the Nuclear Engineering Group in resolving various plant design and operational problems Directly involved in coordinating efforts to update the plant to the changing requirements of the NRC regarding Fire Protection and Prevention per Branch Position 9.5.1.
Represent the Nuclear Operations Department or the Company's
" Resource Conservation and Recovery" Task Force. e,,, - :. ;. 9 q r.j pww.pg. m,, ' r,,.,,...w.,.
j 3. t...,,
,mo.
s.
- a3
f 6/76 - 10/77 Boston Edison Company, Sp;cial Projccto Co:rdin:ccr Staff Assistant to the Manauer of Nuclear Operations, res-ponsible for the following:
1.
Design and implementation of various plant changes such as:
A.
' Fuel pool cooling and residual heat removal system piping changes, to allow more flexibility in processing suppres-sion ibamber and reactor cavity water volume during refuelinc.
2.
Desinn and installation of piping changes and the new "Cupco" Instrument Air Comoressor.
3.
Design of system changes and procedure revision necessary for unit cooldown after complete loss of screenhouse.
Assigned as an " Employee Discushion Group Leader" tc discuss various questions involving the Company which were being voted on during the November elections.
j Became involved in re-allocating available space in Unit til warehouse, to eliminate the need of establishing off-uite storage facilities.
Actively involved in the planning and scheduling of Refueling &
Maintenance Outage #3 which began August 3, 1977.
~
7/68 - 6/76 Boston Edison Company, Chief Operating Encineer, Pilgrim Station The Chief Operating Engineer is responsible for fuel loading, startup and shutdown of the station and its equipment includinc:
1.
System surveillance testing in accordance with requirements outlined in the Station Operations Manual.
2.
Informing licensed operators and senior operators of facility design chances, facility license chances and station pro-cedural changes which have an effect on the performance of their duties.
3.
Maintenance of the special order book, for the implementation of special orders, for ensuring that all appropriate per-sonnel are aware of the responsibilities assigned to them hv the special orders, and for'fetiring special orders when they are no longer needed.
4.
Maintenance of the control room files, training files for all individuals under his supervision.
In the event of any absence or unavailability of the Station Manager, the Chief Operatine Engineer assumes responsibility for overall facilit" operation.
1/68 - 7/68 Boston Edison Company - Mystic Station - Watch Engineer Responsible for the safe and efficient operation of the station. s ge u,. a.n
. q..o., y,,,,,,n. 3 g.,
3_.
_3
4 1/65 - 1/68 Boston Edison Company - New Bo; ton secti:n - Contr:1 Room S:pervisor Responsible for the initial startup and operation of two 400 MWe units.
7/61 - 12/64 Boston Edison Company - Mystic Station - Turbine Operator Responsible und'er supervision for the operation of turbine generators and associated equipment.
1/61 - 7/61 Boston Edison Company - Various Stations - Fireman Responsible for the operation, under supervision, of steam generators.
1/59 - 1/61 Boston Edison Company - Various stations - Au::iliary runder Basically this encompasses operation of auxiliary equipment in power stations.
. J
JAES W. ASHKAR NUCLEAR ENGINEERING DEPUTY MANAGER BOSTON EDISON COWANY EMER ADVISORY C0991ITTEE N
EDUCATION Penn State - Master of Engineering, General Engineering EPDA Fellowship for Engineering Education. (9/72 to 9/73)
University of Delaware-MBA Program (27 credits) no degree (9/69 to 12/71)
Penn State - B.S. Mechanical Engineering Honors: Graduated with high distinction Harding Loan Fund Award Recipient Tau Beta Pi, member Pi Tau Sigma, Chapter President EXPERIENCE Boston Edison Company Assistant to Nuclear Engineering Manager (1/81 to present)
Responsible for planning and implementation of a Risk Management Program based on Probabilistic Risk Assessment, and implementation of a computer-based engineering work management system for all engineering activities.
Group Leader, Systems & Safety Analysis (8/79 to 1/81)
Managed a 10 member staff of engineers and analysts in performing nuclear power plant (BWR
& PWR) system design assessment and specification.
Methods included systems engineering, dynamic thermal / hydraulic analysis, reliability, FMEA, and sequence analysis.
Administratively responsible for strategy
- planning, budgeting, staffing, and training.
Project Manager Fire Protection Modification (4/79 to 8/79)
Responsible for integrated planning (computer-based),
budget' pre-paration, licensing coordination. management reporting and direction of 5-menber engineering team.
Implemented major portions of a $5 million capital project.
Senior Systems Analysis Engineer (1/78 to 4/79)
Performed reliability and risk, cost / benefit and safety evaluations in specification and approval of nuclear power plant systems designs.
Referenced engineering, economic and regulatory standards.
Systems Analysis Engineer (1/77 to 1/78)
Responsible for project engineering coordination, cost
- control, procedure development for state-of-the-art high density nuclear spent fuel storage racks.
Also performed several discrete engineer system i
design reviews.
060184 i
BECO 14,2/136 A-2 3.
James W. Ashkar Page 2 University of Nebraska, School of Engineering Technology, Omaha, NE.
Assistant Professor, Engineering Technology (9/73 to 12/76)
Developed and taught courses in Engineering Technology (mechanical systems, thermodynamics, servomechanisms, dynamics, and industrial engineering).
Distinguished by the first annual Outstanding Teacher Award._ Prepared 10-part videotaped maintenance training program for Northern Natural Gas Corp.
Gibbs-Hill, Incorporated, Omaha, NE.
Mechanical Engineer, Consultant (6/74 to 9/75)
Prepared systems descriptions and design calculations for coal-fired power plant design.
Performed an alternate site evaluation for a nuclear power plant design. Performed an alternate site evaluation for a nuclear power plant project environmental report.
E.I. DuPont, Packaging Films Dept., Wilmington, DE.
Technical Representative Engineer (7/69 to 9/72)
Worked within a specialized marketing division to affect technical coordination between the manufacturing division and major clients.
Union Carbide, Plastics Division, Bound Brook, N.J.
Manufacturing Engineering (6/68 to 9/68, college sunner)
Completed training projects at a manufacturing facility for vinyl resins.
PROFESSIONAL TRAINING / HONORS Registered Professional Engineer, State of Massachusetts / State of Colorado Technical Project Management Seminar, 7/81, AMR Supervision of Engineering Professionals, 8/80, ANA Probabilistic Risk Assessment Seminar, 2/80, JFB Assoc.
PWR Operator Simulator Training, 6/78, Combustion Engineering Kempner Tregoe Decision Analysis Workshop, K-T, 4/78 Nuclear Safety Seminar, 8/78, MIT Member, Boston Edison, Nuclear Safety Review 1 Audit Committee Member, Atomic Industrial Forum, Probabilistic Risk Assessment Comnittee, 1980-81 Speaker, ASME JPC, " Utility Decision Analysis Perspective," 1981 Speaker, NRC Advisory Committee on Reatcor Safeguards Pilgrim-2 PRA/ Design Verification Program, 1981 Member, ASME, 1968-81 Panelist, IEEE/ANS PRA Procedure Preparation Program, 1981 060184 BECO 14,2/136 A-3 U
W. BABC0CK, JR.
SR. ELECTRONICS ENGINEER BOSTON EDISON COWANY PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR OF DESIGN REVIEW 1 TAM l
ECCCATION Bachelor of Science, Electrical Engineering, Brown University,1968 Graduate Study, Industrial Engineering, Ohio University f
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION l
Control Systems Engineer, State of California, Certificate No. CS-3575 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Boston Edison Company (1979 - Present)
Sr. Electronics Engineer, Control Systems Group, Nuclear Engineering Department Presently working as cognizant engineer for Control Room Design Review Project.
Acted as team leader of a BWR Owners' Group control room i
survey team.
Member, BWROG Control Room Improvements Sub-committee.
Also responsible for design of new control systems and modifications to existing control systems at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, including preparation of instructions for installation of new equipment and procedures for check-out and testing of this equipment. Have served as instructor for operator training in electrical / electronic systems operation.
}
l Recent Training in Human Factors Engineering:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology - 1980
" Man-Machine Interfacing" General Electric Nuclear Training Center - 1980 "BWR Owners' Group Human Factors Engineering Workshop" University of Wisconsin - 1981
" Human Performance and Nuclear Safety" i
060184 BECO 14,2/136 A-4
W. Babcock, Jr.
Page 2 EXPERIENCE (Continued)
Burns and Roe, Inc. (1977 - 1979)
Sr. Engineer / Group Supervisor, Instrument and Control Department, Breeder Reactor Division
)
Supervision of I&C engineering group with responsibility for design of balance-of-plant I&C systems for a breeder reactor project.
Lead engineer, solid-state logic systems design.
Lead engineer, electronic security systems.
Ebasco Services, Inc.
Sr. Instrument & Controls Engineer, (1974 - 1977)
Designed I&C systems for application of nuclear and fossil power plants. Reviewed vendor system design documents for compatibility with clients' specifications.
Member of engineering team charged with design and layout responsibilities for control rooms at various power plants, both fossil and nuclear.
Cryogenic Technology, Inc.
Electrical Engineer, (1974)
Designed control systems and control panels for radioactive liquid and gas process systems.
Designed, specified and tested control systems for large cryogenic gas liquefication systems.
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation Control Systems Engineer Designed control panels and control systems for nuclear power applications.
Prepared field test procedures for documentation of installed system performance.
Field engineer for checkout and testing of radioactive waste process systems.
Babcock & Wilcox Company Electrial Engineer, Nuclear Power Generation Department Designed and/or specified electronic control systems for nuclear steam supply systems when built in B&W plants.
Reviewed vendor specifications and documentation for systems built outside B&W.
Instructed customers' engineering personnel on operation and maintenance of B&W's systems.
060184 BECO 14,2/136 A-5
CARL STEPHEN BRENNION SENIOR SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ENGINEER BOSTON EDIS0N COMPANY E NER OF DESIGN REVIEW TEAM PROFESSIONAL SPECIALTY EDUCATION B.S.,
Massachusetts Maritime Academy (Marine and Electrical Engineering),1969 Peterson School of Steam Engineering, Boston, Mass., 1975.
EXPERIENCE Boston Edison Company Sr. Systems Analysis Engineer - Accountable for systems engineering and safety analysis of Pilgrim Station.
Sr.
Instrument and Control Engineer - Accountable for providing engineering support to Pilgrim Station through design, analysis, and modification to pneumatic and electrical / electronic control systems.
Nuclear Operations Supervisor - Responsible for safe and efficient operations of Pilgrim Station on assigned shift in accordance with the requirements of station procedures and regulatory agencies.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
Instrumentation and Control Systems Engineer involved with complete System Control for Municipal and Industrial water treatment, waste treatment and solid waste installations.
Responsibilities included the development of control concepts, piping and instrumentation diagrams, analog and digital logic diagrams, control panel arrangement and fabrication
- drawings, purchase requisitions and installation drawings, review of vendor shop drawings, plant system control write-ups, visits to plant sites for purpose of testing and checkouts, client to vendor contract negotiations, system controls and process simulation using programmable logic controllers.
Chas. T. Main, Inc.
Responsibilities included preparation and upkeep of computerized instrument and alarm
- lists, logic diagrams for plant
- systems, instrumenting piping and flow diagrams, installation drawings for panels and instrumentation, preparation of vendor bid summaries, letters of recommendation, supplements to purchase orders, review of all in-house and vendor equipment drawings for correct instrumentation, 060184 BECO 14,2/136 A-6
1 I
)
(
Carl Stephen Brennion Page two control functions and locations, and participation with mechanical and electrical groups in developing control concepts for Fossil Fuel and Pulp and Paper Power Plant Systems.
Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
Assigned as Control Logic Engineer in the Control Systems Division preparing systems descriptions, logic diagrams and control check-off lists for Nuclear Power clients.
Responsibility included the functional display of control requirements for equipment and systems, step-by-step description of the logic diagram, control and monitoring device summary, and special operating precautions and notes.
Reynolds Metals Company Third Assistant and Second Assistant Engineer responsible for operation of Turbo-Electric Propulsion as watch-standing Engineer.
Responsibilities included maintenance and upkeep of engine rooms and ship machinery, care and purification of lubricating oils systems, upkeep of turbine-driven generators, chemical analysis and treatment of high-pressure boilers, care of furnace side of boilers, internal and external fittings and supervision of lower classification personnel.
Grace Steamship Lines Moore-McCormack Lines Assigned as Third Assistant Engineer with responsibility for operation of turbine gear propulsion plant.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Instrument Society of America - Senior Member 060184 BECO 14,2/136 A-7
SIBEN DASGUPTA CONTROL SYSTEMS GROUP LEADER l
BOSTON EDIS0N COMPANY EMER OF !%NAGEENT REVIEW TEAM EDUCATION Northeastern University, Massachusetts, USA
" Electrical Engineer" Degree with Power Systems as major - 1979.
Northeastern University, Massachusetts, USA M.S. in Engineering Management with Operations Research as a major -
1973.
Calcutta University, Bengal Engineering Colle5e, West Bengal, India; Master of Engineering in Electrical Engineering with Power Systems as a major - 1969.
Calcutta University, Bengal Engineering College, West Bengal, India; Bachelor of Engineering in Electrical Engineering with Power Systems as a major 1967.
Registered Professional Engineer (Massachusetts).
TRAINING Combustion Engineering Nuclear Power Plant Simulator - Training course l
in Nuclear Power Plant Operation.
Qualification of Safety-Related Equipment for Nuclear Power.
Generating Stations - Arranged jointly by Drexel University and IEEE.
Kepner-Tregoe Management Training Course.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Dec. 1981 to Control Systems Group Leader Present Boston Edison Company, Nuclear Engineering Department Oct. 1978 to Boston Edison Company, Boston, Massachusetts Nov. 1981 Senior Electrical Engineer, Nuclear Engineering Department Oct. 1975 to Instrumentation and Control Engineer, Boston Edison Sept. 1978 Company, Nuclear Engineering Department March 1973 Stone and Webster Engineering Corp., Boston, Mass.
to Sept. 1975 Engineer, Control Systems Group, Advisory Operations Group.
Nov. 1970 Bell & Howell Communications Company, Waltham, Mass.
to Feb. 1973 Engineer, Production Engineering Department 060184
l Siben Dasgupta t
Page 2 TEACHING AND RESEARCH EXPERIENCE Sept. 1977 Northeastern University, Boston, Mass.
- Lecturer, to present Graduate School of Engineering Assigned as a part-time lecturer in the Graduate School of Engineering Oct. 1969 Bengal Engineering College, Calcutta University to Sept. 1970 Department of Electrical Engineering - West Bengal, India Senior Research Fellow under the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Govt. of India.
Performed Post-Graduate Research work on
" Transient Analysis of Three-Phase Induction Motors" and was assigned for light teaching load for undergraduate classes in electrical engineering.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS / HONORS Member of Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, USA.
Chairman, IEEE Educational Committee, Boston Chapter.
Member of the Working Group of IEEE Nuclear Power Engineering Committee, Section 4.7, Auxiliary Power Systems.
PUBLICATIONS
" Transient Performance of Three-Phase Induction Motors During Sudden Voltage Depressions": Journal of Technology (India) 1969.
" Degraded or loss of Voltage Protection of Class 1E Auxiliary Power Systems in a Nuclear Power Plant"; S. Dasgupta, J. J. Murphy; presented at the IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium, Oct. 1978.
Published in the IEEE Nuclear Science Transactions, Feb., 1979.
" Maximum Frequency Decay Rate for Reactor Coolant Pump Motors"; R. S.
Hahn, S. Dasgupta, E. M. Baytch, R. D. Willoughby; Presented at the IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium, Oct.,
1978; published in the IEEE Nuclear Science Transactions, Feb., 1979.
060184 BECO 14,2/136 A-9
ERROL P. GAGNON STAFF LICENSING ENGINEER TORREY PINES TECHNOLOGY E MER OF DESIGN REVIEW TEAM PROFESSIONAL SPECIALTY Nuclear Systems Engineering.
Licensing, safety criteria and technical specification preparation and review.
l EDUCATION l
B.S., Engineering, San Diego State University,1965 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AT GA TECHNOLOGIES INC. (Since 1969)
Assistant Project Engineer for the control room design review for the South Texas Project under contract to Bechtel Power Corp.
Chairman of the Results Review Committee of the Human Factors Evaluation program for the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Generating Station control room and responsible for coordination of the program tasks.
Developed safety / licensing positions and criteria for various applications of nuclear power plants.
Evaluated nuclear power plant systems and components to identify and prioritize technical, safety and licensing issues.
Developed nuclear power plant transient performance specifications.
Senior Technical Representative at Fort St. Vrain responsible for technical coordination and guidance on the conduct and evaluation of the startup test program.
Manager of the French Licensee Program responsible for the administrative and technical-transfer aspects of the nuclear power plant licensing agreements and contracts.
Performed simulation studies and evaluations of nuclear power plant transient performance / safety analyses, control systems, control room configurations and plant startup procedures.
OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE General Dynamics Corporation (1965-1969).
Performed dynamic analyses of missile control systems.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS / HONORS Member, American Nuclear Society 060184 BECO 14,2/136 A-10 I
ROBERT E. GRAZIO GROUP LEADER SYSTEM AND SAFETY ANALYSIS BOSTON EDISON COWANY EMER MANAGEENT REVIEW TEAM EDUCATION Babson College, Wellesley, Mass.
MBA Program; 45/60 semester hours completed Central New England College of Technology, Worcester, Mass.
B.S.
Mechanical Engineering Technology Graduated Suma Cum Laude PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Boston Edison Company, Nuclear Engineering Department (June 1983 -
Present)
Systems and Safety Analysis Group Leader Responsible for directing the efforts of up to ten senior engineers / engineers in the performance of group functions in support of plant operations, major projects and regulatory activities. Responsible for technical completeness and correctness of all group outputs involving intersystems relationships, compliance with codes and standards and ability to perform intended functions, and impact evaluation of pending and new regulatory activities.
Responsible for group administration such as formulation and adherance to capital and expense budgets and providing recomendations in all areas of personnel administration.
Boston Edison Company, Outage Management Group (Nov. 1982 - June 1983)
Senior Project Engineer Responsible for the coordination of all Engineering inputs to the conduct of outages and assisting in the integration of these inputs with those of other departments.
This responsiblity was performed in conjunction with the group charter of maintaining overall responsi-bility and accountability for the conduct of outages. Also responsible for the coordination of multiple department inputs to an organizational strategic plan as a supplementary assignment.
060184 BECO 14,2/136 A-11
E' Robert E. Grazio Page 2 Boston Edison Company, Nuclear Engineering Department (March 1980 -
Nov. 1982) i Senior System Analysis Engineer Appointed to functional position of Project Engineer for a $14M multi-discipline project June 1981.
Responsibilities included coordination of inputs of various engineering disciplines into an integrated package to meet technical licensing, schedule, and budget requirements.
Responsibilities as Senior Engineer in the System and Safety Analysis Group as outlined above.
Special assignments included feasibility studies, conceptual designs, and operator training.
Interfaced with a wide variety of organizations, including regulatory agencies, industry i
groups,. vendors, consultants, and various in-house organizations.
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (July 1977 - March 1980)
Engineer Maintained overall responsibility for several engineering retrofit tasks to solve operational problems of an operating power plant.
Scope of responsibilities included coordination of the efforts of the required engineering aspects of the tasks and participation in equip-
~
ment procurement including preparation of specifications, bid cycle activities, and reconmendations.
Task duration typically from problem identification and conceptual solutions to completion of system startup.
Interfaced with client home office and site engineering, client operations, maintenance and construction, vendors and technical and non-technical support groups.
United States Navy (March 1969 - June 1977)
Served at various locations including Nuclear Power Training, Fleet Ballistic Missile (Polaris) Submarine, and Submarine Nuclear Repair Facility.
Technical experience included assisting Lockheed shipbuilding engineers in the design of nuclear support facilities for a new class of submarine tender, design of fluid and process system modifications, craft supervision of operating submarine repair and modifications, all phases of power plant operation, shipyard overhaul, and pre-overhaul and post-overhaul testing of primary
- and secondary systems.
060184 BECO 14,2/136 A-12
Robert E. Grazio Page 3 PROFESSIONAL TRAINING / HONORS Engineer-in-Training, Massachusetts (June 1979)
Member ASME Seminar Training -
Battelle Project Management Seminar W.P.I. Engineering Management Seminar CE PWR Simulator, M.I.T. Reactor Safety Course PUBLICATIONS
" Operational Analpis" presented at August 1982/ANS/ ENS meeting on i
Reactor Safety.
l 060184 BECO 14,2/136 A-13
i l
DERWOOD W. HUGHES, JR.
SENIOR NUCLEAR TRAINING SPECIALIST BOSTON EDIS0N COWANY ENER 0F DESIGN REVIEW TEAM I
EDUCATION:
Braintree High School - 1949 Peterson's School of Steam Engineering, 1957 - 1069.
WORK EXPERIENCE:
1981 - Present Sr. Nuclear Training Specialist 1976 - 1981 Boston Edison Company, Day Watch Engineer, Pilgrim Station The Day Watch Engineer is assigned the responsi-bility for the safe efficient operation of Pilgrim Station under the direction of the Chief Operating Engineer, in accordance with the requirements of station, procedures and regulatory agencies.
Plans and directs the startup, normal operations and i
shutdown of the station within Technical Specifica-tions and Operating Procedures.
In the absence or unavailability of the Chief Operating Engineer, the Day Watch Engineer will assume the duties and responsibilities of the Chief Operating Engineer.
060184 BECO 14,2/136 A-14
1 SAL F. LUNA PROJECT ENGINEER TORREY PINES TECHNOLOGY E MER DESIGN REVIEW TEAM i
PROFESSIONAL SPECIALTY Design and development, instrumentation and control; human factors
)
EDUCATION B.S., Chemistry, Magna Cum Laude, Niagara University,1947 Specialty courses:
Seismic - Wyle Labs, Human Factors - University of Tennessee and Electric Power Research Institute.
L EXPERIENCE Project Engineer responsible for NUREG-0700 type design review of the South Texas Project control room.
Project Engineer responsible for Human Factors review of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station control rooms.
Performed Annunciator Prioritization Study for same.
Directed design of advanced control room control consoles and unitized cabinets including: human factors engineering, full scale mock-ups, modular construction and seismic qualification.
(
Project Engineer responsible for Probabilistic Risk Assessment Study for Fire Protection Program Assessment of Northeast Utilities Nuclear Plants - Connecticut Yankee, Millstone 1, and Millstone 2.
(
Consultant, review of PG&E equipment qualification documents for NRC approval.
Developed formats and organized walkdown teams for PP&L equipment qualification program.
Design of a wide variety of systems for advanced HTGR plants. Special studies for application of all technology for modernizing existing nuclear power plants featuring a " Diagnostic Console."
Directed development of in-core and ex-core instrumentation to study Fort St. Vrain core fluctuation phenomena.
Directed site engineering and craf t effort to provide fire protection of critical Fort St. Vrain cabling.
Prepared specifications, designed special testing equipment conducted qualification tests, evaluated results and prepared reports for cabling and instrumentation for Fort St. Vrain equipment qualification program.
060184 BECO 14,2/136 A-15 f
l
Sal F. Luna Page 2 Managed a wide variety of instrumentational control and development groups at Westinghouse Electric Corp. for the nuclear navy and commer-cial nuclear programs.
Cognizant engineer for Annunciator Systems for
- same, Directed the design 'and development of a wide variety of processing plant instrumentation systems for Catalytic Construction Co.
PUBLICATIONS Editor of Cassette Control Valve Training Program.
Author of chapter on Maintenance - ISA Control Valve Handbook.
Author of chapter on Liquid Level Measurement - ISA publication.
Also authored a wide variety of technical papers including methodology and results of human factors review of Palo Verde, and advanced control room design.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Registered Professional Engineer (control) California Fellow Grade Member of ISA Past Vice President Long Range Planning Department of ISA Nuclear Power Plant Standards Committee of ISA Member Human Factors Society 060184 BECO 14,2/136 A-16 L
m PAUL E. MASTRANGELO CHIEF OPERATIONS ENGINEER BOSTON EDISON COMPANY MEMBER ADVISORY COMMITTEE EDUCATION:
Somerville Trade School Graduated 1956 N:w England Oil Heat Institute 1960-1961 Peterson School of Steam Engineering 1965 LICENSES:
Nuclear Power Plant Operating Supervisor Engineer (PA) 1982 NRC Senier Reactor Operator SOP 2004-4 1974 Nuclear Power Plant Operating Engineer (MA) 1973 NRC Reactor Operator 1972 2nd Class Fireman 1965 3rd Class Engineer 1969 SPECIAL COURSES:
Steam En; International Correspondence School 1970 - I.C.S. Certificate NUS Nuclear Prep Course 1971 - Certificate i
Penn State Triga Reactor Training 1970 l
l PRESE';T POSITION TITLE:
Chief Operations Engineer EXPEEIENCE:
l Bosten Edicen Cc ranv:
9/1/S2 to Present Chief Orerations Encineer - Pilcri= Nuclear Power Station (PNPS' Respor. ible for tne sate and efficient operation of PSPS in accordance with NRC regulations and Station procedures under direction of the Station Manager and other regulatory agencies.
1/27/79 to 8/29/82 Nuclear Watch Engineer - Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station hespcaslole for all activities relatine to Station safety and all operations of the Station including fuel loading, startup and shutdown in accordance with the requirements of the Operating License, Technical Specifications, approved operating procedures, regulatory agencies and other governing bodies.
5/16/73 to 1/2",/79 Nuclear Oneratine Sunervisor - Pilitim Nuclear Power Station Responsible tor supervising the Nuclear Plant operators and implementing operating =aneuvers in accordance with Station procedures and assist in training the NP0s in their skill and knowledge required to safely. operate a nuclear facility.
1970 to May 1978 Nuclear Plant Doerator - Pilcrim Nuclear Power Station Participated in fuel loacing, pre-op testing, 20; power testing and operated all station equipment.
w
Boston Edison Company (cont) 1968 - 1970
- Boiler Operator - Mystic Station Operate boilers, including responsibility for the feedwater driving turbines with a capacity of 150 MWE cach.
1966 - 1968 Fireman - Edcar Station and Kneeland Street Operated boilers, under the direction of the Watch Engineer.
1965 - 1966 Turbine Tender - L Street Station Operated turbine and turbine equipment under the direction of the Watch Engineer.
1964 - 1965 Auxiliary Operator - Mystic Station and Edcar Station Operated boiler and turbine auxiliary equipment under the direction of the turbine operator and boiler operator.
1963 - 1964 Auxiliarv Tender - L Street Station and Kneeland Street Station Operated boiler and turoine auxiliary equipment under tne direction of the fireman, water tender and turbine tender.
1961 - 1962 Station Cleaner General housecleaning duties.
O O
e e
e e
e e
e CHARLES H. MIN 0TT PROJECT MANAGER BOSTON EDIS0N COMPANY E NER OF DESIGN REVIEW TEAM EDUCATION M. S. Civil Engineering: Project Management Program, M.I.T., 1974 B. S. Civil Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.,
)
1972.
1 EXPERIENCE Project Manager, Nuclear Engineering Department, Boston Edison Responsible for managing the following projects in support of Pilgrim Station:
Design / construction of a 130,000 s.f. administration / service building.
Renovation of a 30,000 s.f. building for a nuclear training center.
Design / construction of a facility for compaction / shipping of low level radioactive waste Control room design review.
Upgrade of emergency response facilities.
Replacement of the plant computer and installation of an SPDS.
Project Engineer, Nuclear Projects Group, Boston Edison Company 9/81-9/82 Responsible for management of the architect / engineer's and turbine supplier's scope of work during close-out of the Pilgrim 2 Project including contract negotiation / settlement, protection of assests, and marketing / sale of assets.
Responsible for a budget of $4 million.
Responsible for testifying at the Department of Public Utilities regarding Pilgrim 2 cost and contractual issues.
7/80-8/81 Responsible for shipping, receiving, storage and maintenance of all equipment manufactured for Pilgrim Unit #2; this equipment's value exceeded $!50 million and was stored in numerous states.
Responsible for developing work plans, assign work to other Boston l
Edison Departments and principal contractors and monitor progress on this work to assure the storage and maintenance program for the equipment was cost effective, technically correct and adhered to I
applicable codes.
060184 1
BECO 14,2/136 A-17
CHARLES H. MIN 0TT Page 2 EXPERIENCE (Continued)
Responsible for developing necessary control systems and insurance and audit programs.
Directly responsible for a budget of $1 million per year.
Senior Cost Control Engineer, Boston Edison Co.
1/78-6/80 Prepared project procedures for the Pilgrim 2 Project in the following areas:
engineering economics, accounting, insurance, tax and cost estimate preparation and reviews.
Cost Control Engineer 9/74-12/77 Developed a
management control system for Nuclear Organization purchase orders.
Reviewed architect-engineer's project cost estimate for Pilgrim 2; prepared and maintained the owner's scope portion of the cost estimate, prepared periodic cost reports and analyzed cost trends.
Reviewed contractor bid analyses and developed recommendations for management approval.
Prepared other project cost estimates, insurance valuations, cost studies, cash flows, and economic analyses for executive management, other Edison departments, joint owners, and regulatory agencies.
Developed and implemented a cost reporting system for a nuclear unit refueling outage.
Coordinated the preparation of the Nuclear Organization capital and expense budgets.
Responsible for cost / schedule and contract management of two Unit 1 backfit projects.
Represented Edison in the Electric Utility Cost Group.
(1972 - 1974) Massachusetts Institute of Technology Research Assistant; worked under an NSF contract developing a cost estimating method incorporating risk analysis for use in the tunneling industry.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS / HONORS Project Management Institute Chi Epsilon (civil engineering)
Tau Beta Pi (engineering)
Alpha Phi Gamma (journalism)
Sigma Xi (research) 060184 BECO 14,2/136 A-18
RICHARD C. POTTER STAFF ENGINEER TORREY PINES TECHNOLOGY EPEER OF DESIGN REVIEW TEAM PROFESSIONAL SPECIALTY Power plant dynamic and steady-state systems design and analysis including large scale systems simulation.
EDUCATION B.S., Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota M.S., Mechanical Engineering, University of Southern California EXPERIENCE Mr. Potter is presently acting as consultant on the control room design review for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.
He recently completed an assignment as Assistant Project Engineer on the control room design review of the South Texas Project Nuclear Generating Station where he performed system functions and task analysis, perform-ed a control room survey, developed program plans and directed other engineers during the review.
Mr. Potter was responsible for a fire vulnerability study of three Northeast Utilities nuclear power plants.
Study involved the use of probabilistic risk assessment techniques for predicting the shutdown capability of these plants in the event of a fire.
He also participated in a probabilistic risk assessment of the Fort St.
Vrain plant to determine clean up costs versus probability for on-site contamination due to an interruption of cooling event.
On the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station project responsible for: modifying and maintaining computer models for the simulation of steady-state and transient plant performance review which included data monitoring and analysis as required to ensure proper plant operation; and performing steady-state and dynamic analysis to support the plant startup testing program.
While assigned to the Gas Cooled Fast Reactor Project he performed a conceptual analysis of a natural convection, drum-type and condenser-type shutdown cooling system.
On the HTGR nuclear project he was responsible for the following:
modifying and maintaining the steady-state and transient plant perfor-mance programs, the pipe rupture analysis program and the core af ter-heat analysis program; predicting power plant nominal, shutdown and refueling performance for use by design and analysis groups within the company and for use by the customers and performing parametric and application studies relating to the overall plant design and perfor-mance.
060184 BECO 14,2/136 A-19 l
i--
- - i
'=
Richard C. Potter Page 2 EXPERIENCE (Continued)
Prior to joining Torrey Pines Technology, he directed activities
)
involving propulsion analyses, application studies and computer simula-tion work on large liquid rocket engines.
He has also worked as a design engineer responsible for design and detailing of ground support equipment for rockets.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS i
Professional Mechanical Engineer in State of California Member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Member of Pi Tau Sigma i
I 060184 BECO 14,2/136 A-20
}
JEFFREY L. R0GERS SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ENGINEER BOSTON EDIS0N CON ANY E MER OF DESIGN REVIEW TEAM PROFESSIONAL SPECIALTY Opportunity to utilize technical, supervisory and operational l
experience in the areas of systems analysis and reactor safety.
EDUCATION Clarkson College of Technology, Potsdam, NY; 1975-1977 B.S.
- Degree, 1977; Mechanical Engineering State University of New York at Albany, Albany, NY; 1973-1975 Majored in physics and mathematics Intern Engineer Certificate, State of New York, 1977 EXPERIENCE Boston Edison Company, Boston, MA.
Systems Analysis Engineer, (October 1981 to Present)
Accountable for providing nuclear safety evaluations consistent with industry standards and regulatory requirements.
Responsibilities include the review and approval of safety evaluations / assessments of plant safety system designs, operating practices, system modifications, and Technical Specification changes; establishment, maintenance and approval of the Q-List; review of regulatory guides and information for PNPS applicability; establish criteria for system design; provide system engineering input to special projects; and perform systematic analysis of special events.
Operations Engineer, (June 1980 to October 1981)
Responsible for the timely and cost effective completion of design modification projects initiated internally by Boston Edison Company and externally by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Ensured on-going progress of corrective action through integration of corporate and plant work activities and monitoring work in accordance with plans, schedules and costs.
Assisted in review of NRC documents to ensure o* rational compliance.
Also responsible for providing operational engineering support to and analysis of the system of Pilgrim Station, Plymouth, MA.
060184 BECO 14,2/136 A-21
Jeffrey L. Rogers Page 2 EXPERIENCE (Continued)
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Oswego, NY Assistant Station shift Supervisor, (June 1978 to June 1980)
As leader of operations personnel, had responsibility and authority for the implementation, coordination and control of operating policies and practices used in the start-up of a 850 MW power pl ant.
Actively involved in the creation of start-up, normal operation and shut-down procedures for plant equipment and systems; participated in completion of control and mechanical verification system start-up packages; and served as shift supervisor of operating crew during system start-up and full power operations.
Auxiliary Supervisory Development Course Trainee, (June 1977 to June 1978)
In training for ultimate assignment of a supervisory nature in the corporation.
Acquired a knowledge of the objectives, functions, organization and key personnel of each department.
Emphasis was placed on familiarization with power plant operation and maintenance.
)
I 060184 BECO 14,2/136 A-22
^ ~ _ _ _ - - _
RAYMOND SABEH HUMAN FACTORS CONSULTANT TORREY PINES TECHNOLOGY EMER OF DESIGN REVIEW TEAM PROFESSIONAL SPECIALTY Human Factors Engineering, Operations Research Analysis EDUCATION i
PH.D.,
(candidate), Experimental Psychology, Ohio State University M.S.,
Industrial Psychology, Ohio University B.A.,
General Psychology, Davis and Elkins College EXPERIENCE Responsible for Human Factors review of Corrective Enhancements, hierarchial labeling, and demarcation for the South Texas Project.
Responsible for special studies and operations personnel validation via operator questionnaire interview evaluations for the Palo Verde Plants.
Responsible for preparing and implementing the human factors portion of the NUREG-0700 plan for three NU nuclear operating plants and a fourth NT0L plant.
Served as the human f actors team member on the NU Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) program that will be designed, devel-oped, and implemented for as consortium of some 10 separate utility plants. Prepared Human Factors Engineering Orientation Course material used for instructing nuclear engineers and reactor operators.
Northeast Utilities - served as project leader and carried out nuclear operations analysis assignments concerning nuclear regulatory require-ments to conduct human factors study, analysis and review of all activities affecting man-machine power plant design and operation.
In this capacity was appointed as subcommittee chairman to technically monitor and direct the Westinghouse Corporation's efforts for develop-ing a generic system function and task analysis on their PWR plants under contract to Westinghouse Owner's Group.
Consultant - responsible for human factors design of a control center for the storage and retrieval of nuclear waste.
Currently compiling a handbook of human factors engineering design criteria.
Manager / man-machine analysis branch performed human engineering analysis of the Automated Record Data Systein for the E4A Aircraf t.
Also performed a man-machine analysis of the FFGX-CIC space and work place design for SEAMOD, a ship-shore communications effectiveness study.
Designed the operator interface for the Minimum Essential Emergency Communications Network Message Processing Mode including the development of computer simulation techniques to assess alternate operator interface designs.
A-23
R. Sabeh Page 2 EXPERIENCE (Continued)
Engineering Psychologist initiated and coordinated research in development of methods and techniques used in human factors engineering system design and development.
Technical leader of a communications effectiveness study effort and shipboard habitability programs.
l Planned and technically directed the National Military Command System and Emergency Action Room study for the Defence Communcations Agency and World-Wide airborne command posts.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Human Factor Society Operations Research Society of America National Academy of Sciences Armed Forces-NTD Committee on Vision Southeast Regional Director, Society for Information Displays PUBLICATIONS Human Factors Design Considerations for the Monitored Retrievable Storage System.
Path Research Technical Document PR81001.
June 1981.
MMPM Operator Interface Design (0ID) Final Report.
SEI Technical Document. December 1979.
Human Engineering Analysis of the Automated Record Data System for the E4A Aircraft.
SEI Technical Document 0279-1.
January 1978.
Human Engineering Analysis and Evaluation of the Integrated Record Data System for the EC-135 Aircraf t.
NOSC Technical Document 113.
August 1977.
Profile for Open Ocean Crane Operators.
NELC Technical Note 3209.
August 1976.
Human Factors Analysis of the National Military Command System's Emergency Action Rooms.
NELC Technical Note 3109. December 1975.
Preliminary Human Engineering Analysis of the Signal Intelligence Analysis System (SIAS). NELC Technical Note 2252.
(U), January 1973.
Voice Traffic Analysis of LANTFLEX 66, Racer Run 68, and R0PEVAL 3-71 Exercises. NELC Technical Document 175. May 1972.
USS BLUE RIDGE (LCC 19) Communications Effectiveness Evaluation.
NELC Technical Document 146.
(U), October 1971.
060184 j
BECO 14,2/136 A-24
l l
l l
R. Sabeh Page 3 PUBLICATIONS (Continued)
Operator Fatique and Fighter Range Extension.
WADC Technical Report No.53-380. October 1953.
Comparison of a Single Operator's Performance with Team Performance on a Tracking Task. WADC Technical Note 55-362. July 1955.
i 060184 BECO 14,2/136 A-25
KENNETH NORMAN TAYLOR SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR BOSTON EDIS0N CONANY EMER DESIGN REVIEW TEAM EDUCATION Presently attending Northeastern University pursuing a-degree in engineering.
Nuclear Power Training Unit, West Milton, NY - 1960 U.S. Navy Nuclear Power School, New London, Conn. (1959)
Machinist's Mate "A" School Great Lakes, IL - Cole Trade Higa School, Southbridge, MA M.A., Nuclear Power Plant Operating Engineer (1978)
NRC Senior Reactor Opreator License S.0.P. 4065 (1977)
NRC Reactor Operator (1975)
M.A., License - 1st Fireman (1975)
EXPERIENCE Boston Edision Ccmpany Day Watch Engineer-Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, (2/81 to present)
Responsible for the safe, efficient operation of Pilgrim Station, under the dircction of the Chief Operating Engineer in accordance with the requirements _ of Station Procedures and Regulatory Agencies.
Responsible for rewriting procedures, update of P&ID's and ensuring a smooth accurate communication with the departments within the station.
Nuclear Watch Engineer-Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, (11/78 to 2/81)
Responsible for all activi ties relating to station and safety including, fuel loading, startup and shutdown in accordance with the requirements of the operating
- license, Technical Specifications, approved operating procedures, regulatory agencies, and the Operations Quality Assurance Program.
Reiponsible for implementing the station radiation protection program, k that fnr the monitoring the performance of station euipment, for assurin the reactor is chutdown when a condition has been identified socS that continued operation would jeopardize station safety and the station security within the confines of the process building, Nuclear Operating Supervisor-Pilgrim Nuclear Pmer ' Station, (11/75 to 11/78)
)
Responsible for supervising the Nuclear Plant Operators and implementing operating maneuvers in accordance with approved station procedures and for assisting in training the huclear Plant Operators in the skill and knowledge required for the safe ind efficient operation of a nuclear faciifty.
060184 BECO 14,2/136 A-26
/
L__
Kenneth N. Taylor Page 2 OTHER EXPERIENCES 5/73 to 11/75 Served on U.S.S. Skipjack SS(N) 575 as Engineering Watch Supervisor 4/72 to 5/73 Served on staff at Engineering Repair Division, New London, Conn.
8/65 to 4/72 Served on U.S.S. Francis Scott Key SSB(N) 657 as Engineering Officer of the Watch 12/62 to 8/65 Served on U.S.S.
Stonewall Jackson SSB(N) 631 as Engineering Watch Supervisor 1/61 to 12/62 Served on U.S.S. Ethan Allen SSB(N) 607 as Engine Room Supervisor 1/59 to 1/61 Received U.S. Naval Training at various schools 2/57 to 1/59 Served on U.S.S. Skate SS(N) 578 as Engine Room Operator 12/56 to 2/57 Served on U.S.S. Leyte C.V.S. 32 as Auxilary Operator 060184 BECO 14,2/136 A-27
a k
j FREDERICK W. TOOT' STAFF ENGINEER
\\
TORREY PINES TECMOLOGY EMER DESIGN REVIEW TEAM PROFESSIONAL SPECIALTY Process computer systems conceptional
- design, configuration and application development.
~
EDUCATION B.S., Physics, Wayne' State University Electronics School, U.S.M.C.
EXPERIENCE n
Performed a control room survey of the plant cc.nputer for South Texas Project.
Coordinated proposal efforts to supply computer hardware and sof tware for emergency response f acilities for nuclear plants.
Implemented computer demonstration of plant dist bance detection concept.,
Developed real _ time application programs to support start-up testing and reactor operatici.
Monitored system behavior' during start-up, located' deficiencies ano~ made modifications as needed.
Trained plant personnel to use computer facilities.
Section leader for large plant computer system application software development.
Specification writing for' plant computer hardware and software and participation in the ven, dor, evaluation process.
Performed nuclear ' design and. analysis calculations associated with reactor, power shaping, fuel cycles, control poison worth, and safety evaluations. of HTGR and PWR reactors.
Developed m'ethods and computer progrws for nuclear fuel cycle studies, i
fuel cost ; analysis, and automation,of reactor design parametric studies.
Performed, nuclear design studies' on small power, research, and space reactor concepts using a variety of fuels, moderators, and coolants.
Evaluated nuclear ' design calculation programs (computer codes) by comparison with critical experiments.
)*
060184 BECO 14,2/136 A-28 j
\\
F. W. Todt Page 2 EXPERIENCE (Continued)
Performed laboratory work with radioactive isotopes including sample
- counting, dosage preparation, standardization.
Calibrated x-ray machines and radiation measurement equipment.
Performed radiation shielding surveys.
Installed, maintained, and repaired radio receivers, transmitters and
. telephone carrier equipment.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION American Nuclear Society i
060184 BECO 14,2/136 A-29
-