ML20097G497

Program Plan for Implementation of Control Room Design Review

ML20097G497
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	09/30/1984
From:	Foster D GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:	Adensam E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
GN-416, PROC-840930, NUDOCS 8409200027
Download: ML20097G497 (85)

Text

,

g as a

e--+

s.

-...rt---

a.----sa-

.a

-,=-Me.w..aAa..a*

1a-

---x-s on-no A_

.-wa a

e---

+

f i

l I

I a.

+

l-a e

t 3

PROGRAM PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF CCNTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW GEORGIA POWER COMPANY VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT I-SEPTEMBER 1984 7

I

[..

O b

4 9

h I

I

'e h

f l

i l

i l

l i

b4

^

O F.

PDR S

E

P TABLE OF CONTENTS s

' Section Page

'1. 0 INTRODUCTION...................................

1 2.O' OVERVIEW.......................................

2 2.1 PURPOSE...................................

2 2.2 OBJECTIVES................................

2

2.3 DESCRIPTION

OF CRDR ACTIVITIES............

3 2.3.1 Execution Phase.................

3 2.3.2 Assessment Phase...............'.

3 2.3.3 Documentation Phase.............

4 2.3.4 Correction Phase................

4 2.3.5 Effectiveness Phase.............

4-2.4 -DEFINITION OF TERMS.......................

5 3.0 PLANNING PHASE.................................

7 3.1 CRDR MANAGEMENT REVIEW TEAM...............

7' 3.2 REVIEW TEAM STRUCTURE.....................

7 3.2.1 Review Team Leader...............O 3.2.2 Instrument and Controls (I&C)

Specialist................

8 3.2.3 Senior Reactor Operator (RO)....

8 3.2.4 Design Engineer.................

9 3.3 REVIEW TEAM ACTIVITIES....................

9 e

h (i)

~

7 n_-,.=-.

n.

.~

Ir t

~ REVIEW TEAM ORGANIZATIONAL INTERFACES..... 9 3.4 a

F..

3.4.1 Site Interfaces.................

9 p

3.4.2 Corporate Interface.............

9 3.4.3 Coordination...#...............

10 9

3.5 REVIEW TEAM ORIENTATION..................

10 3.6 USE OF CONSULTANTS.......................

11 4.0 EXECUTION PHASE...............................

11 4.1 OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW..............

11 441.1 Historical Documentation Review 12 4.1.2 Operating Personnel-Survey.....

13 4.1.2.1 Questionnaire........ 14 4.1.2.2 Adminstration........ 14 4.1.3 Problem Reports................

15 4.1.4 Fo11cw-up......................

15 4.2 CONTROL ROOM SURVEY......................

15 i

4.2.1 Questionnaires, Checklists, and Surveys....................

16 4.2.1.1 Questionnaires....... 16 4.2.1.2 Checklists...........

18 t

4.2.1.3 Surveys..............

18 4.2.2 Personnel Assignments.......... 20 4.3 TASK ANALYSIS............................

20 4.3.1 Task Identification............ 20 i

4.3.2 Verification of Instrumentation 21 O

(ii)

~

i E

4.3.3 Validation of Control Room i

Functions......................

22 4.3.4 Data Recording and Analysis.... 24 4.3.5 Personnel Assignments..........

25 5.0 kSSESSMENT PHASE....................~..........

25 5.1 OBJECTIVES...............................

25 5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA......................

26 5.3 RESOLUTION OF HEDs....................... 27 6.0 DOCUMENTATION PHASE...........................

28 6.1 GENERAL DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS....... 28

6.2 REFERENCES

............................... 29 6.3 REVIEW DOCUMENTATIGN.....................

30 6.4

SUMMARY

REPORT.....................,.....

30 7.0 CORRECTION PHASE..............................

32 7.1 SCHEDULING...............................

32 7.2 IMPLEMENTAT10N...........................

32 P

8.0 EFFECTIVENESS PHASE...........................

33 8.1 VALIDATION OF CHANGES....................

33 8.2 FUTURE CONTROL ROOM CHANGES......'........

34 9.0 COORDINATION WITH OTHER ACTIVITIES..'..........

34 o.

10.0

, ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA...........................

35

~

(iii)

3,-...

• g..

+ \\_

f.-

.v.

t

.i

. c.. x q

y ai s

,,n.a.

i-

_S_ts r

l '-

a

c. T ys r

~

~}

'g4 a

t ATTACHMENT 1: uDPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW

.sl '*

QUE,STIONNAIRE AND COVER LETTER A

s 4p 5

,, A i

~

t

~

ATTACHMENT 7: *nCCNTROL ROOM DESIGN PROBLEM REPORT 4

(-

i

's ' W-Ls.

4 A,TTACHMENTk3:

TA.S,K ANALYSIS DATA F.ORMS

', g h(.

4

,y

'SITACH' MENT 4 ' REVIEW TEAM RESUMES s

i

\\

s

~

k g

I '< t s

(.

g r '.

^h t

t

,. 3,

T' J

\\

s g

s

\\

\\

s"

• \\ *

,y

• 4 I,*

's m

"1

., ) ( y 44 s t i;

\\'

a

=

y._,

\\

y' i

.t

\\

s.

.g s

s

\\,

i

.c. y s e n

/

\\

~%

t) 7

+

• t

\\

'2.,

f '.

N s-g i

1 g

1

' t r,'i-

{

.) ',

\\

s

,\\

g @@

k j'

~

'( +

t 9

4 e

7, i.(.

s

• • \\

s'".y <

'8 e

N (Lv)

/ $

!r-

't g,

3

. -l l

. ' N,.*,4

/

3 3

'-T e

,n

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT UNIT 1 CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW i.0.

INTRODUCTION The Vogtle. Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) in Burke County, Georgi a is the site of two nuclear power units under construction by Georgia Power Company (GPC).

The plant contains two units; identical four loop Westinghouse pressurized water reactors (3411 Mwt) with General Electric turbine generators (1157 Mwe).

Unit 1 is the subject of this review.

The' Control Room Design Review (CRDR) is part of the effort within the industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to upgrade control rooms, emergency response facilities, and procedures.

Although the CRDR is directed toward the existing control room, other areas of concernt specifically the design of a Safoty Parameter Display System (SPDS), the inclusion of Post-Accident Monitoring (PAM) instrumentation, and Emergency Operating Procedures are addressed in the CRDR.

Guidance for the CRDR and related activities has been provided in the form of various NUREGs and Regulatory Guides.

A Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee (NUTAC) with staff support from the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) has developed a generic control room design review implementation plan from these guidelines.

That plan and supporting documents have been used by GPC for the development of this program plan.

This implementation plan describes the manner in which GPC intends to conduct a review of the VEGP. control room.

GPC does not intend to wait for NRC epproval of this implementation plan before commencing the review.

However, GPC enpects that any deficiencies in the plan noted by the NRC staff will be brought to GPC's attention in a timely manner.

This implementation plan also provides a basis upon which to judge that an adequate CRDR has been' conducted.

e (k

m 1

i 2. 0 '

OVERVIEW u;

2.1 -

PURPOSE The purpose of the CRDR is to ensure that the VEGP Unit l' control room and. remote' shutdown panels will support safe operation during emergency conditions...The operator' tasks required during emergencies will be based on the emergency f

_f procedure guidelines (EPGs) in the plant specific EOPs. 1 2.2' OBJECTIVES To ensure that the CRDR fulfills its stated

- pur p o se, several objectives will be met during the r,evi ew.

The'following specific objectives are defineo'for the CRDR:

2.2.1

~*

To perf,orm a control room survey that compares the existing control room design with accepted human

, engineering criteria.

s

.s 2.2.2.

. To. revi.'ew relevant pl ant operational experience

,,-using[aNpr'priate documentation and operator o

o' questionnaires.

2. 2. 3-To determine the information and control L

requirements of control room operator tasks during I'

emergency conditions.

.N

2. 2. 4' To identify human engineering discrepancies (HEDs).

_s

_r 2.2.5 To evaluate the extent and importance of identified discrepancies.

h' r -

,,g <.2.2.6, To formulate;and implement solutions for significant discrepancies (as evaluated in-2.2.5).

r 2.2.7

-To ensure that the proposed solutions do, in fact, i

eliminate or miti~ gate tHe discrepancies for which they are,Yormul,ated without creating new discrepancies. I' 2.2.8

.To. validate that implemented solutions eliminate

.or' mitigate identified discrepancies.

fq?g

.b i.

j,

.p 3

4

'.4 i

s a

r 'i,

11 i

e (2)

,(

. ).

, i.i..

IE P

c

~ 2. 3

' DESCRIPTION OF'CRDR ACTIVITIES To achieve the stated objectives of the CRDR, several activities will be completed during the review.

The CRDR has been split into six nominal phases:

planning, execution, assessment, correction, effectivenass, and.

b

~

The planning phase of the CRDR is documentation.

represented by'this implementation plan.

The documentation phase is actually concurrent with all other phases.

The. activities within each phase will be described in more detail later, but a brief synopsis of Lthese activities will: help give a general picture of'the review process.

2.3.1

, Execution Phase The execution phase will constitute the data gathering portion of the CRDR.

During this phase, a control room _ survey will compare the characteristics of the existing control room with

-appropriate _ human engineering design guidelines.

An cxamination of' operating experience, both generic and plant-specific, will be conducted by a review of historical operational documents, such as-plant trip reports and Licensee Event Reports

~(LER), through' questionnaires and interviews 4:

with control room operators, and through experience gained at the plant-specific simulator.

During task' analysis, the Westinghouse

~ symptom-oriented EPGs and the plant systems called

'for in the EPGs'will be analyzed to determine the tasks required 'cif operators during emergencies.

The instrumentation and control requirements for those tasks will-be established, and the adequacy and completeness of existing instrumentation and controls will be determined.

C2.3.2:

Assessment Phase During the assessment phase,any discrepancies identified in'the execution phase will be analyzed, and the potential impact of each discrepancy on emergency. plant operation will be A

9 h

(3)

I

~

evaluated.. Discrepancies will be classified

.according to their potential impact on emergency

. plant operation.

Significant discrepancies will

tue resolved through enhancement, modification, or other means, such as changes to procedures, staffing,fand training.. Any actions proposed to resolve.uignificant discrepancies will be analyzed for_their ef.fect on operation.

In particular, proposed solutions that affect procedural changes will be examined thoroughly for.thei.r potential impact -on related procedures.

2.3.3

. Documentation Phase A summary report will be submitted at the conclusion of the assessment phase of the CRDR that will summarize the overall review process,

. summarize the identified human engineering discrepancies, describe the disposition of discrepancies.for which no changes were made, describe control room design improvements implemented during the course of the review, identify existing-design. characteristics that.are.

-beneficial, and identify proposed. design improvements.that were not implemented durir.g the review and their schedules for implementation if those schedules are known at'the, time the report.

is written.. The summary report will be submitted to the NRC.

2.3.4 Correction Phase A. plant-specific' plan will be developed that ensures the integration of proposed control room changes with other post-TMI programs, as well as-

. plant operating status.- A schedule will be

' developed -f or the orderly introduction of proposed

+

changes.. The schedule will take into account the required training of operators on pending changes.

Administrative follow-up will'be instituted to ensure the-successful completion and integration of all control ro*om changes.-

2.3.5 l Effectiveness Phase

-Procedures will be implemented at VEGP to solicit,

-evaluate,s and act on operational feedback s

.concerning plant system design and plant procedures.

This program will make-certain that changes resulting-from the CRDR are evaluated for their effectiveness.

9 (4)

=

4 2.4'

-DEFINITION OF TERMS Control Room Design Review (CRDR) - A post-TMI task listed in NUREG-0660, " Task _ Action Plan Developed as a Result of the TMI-2 Accident," and NUREG-0737, the staff supplement to NUREG-0660, as Task I. D.1.

Control Room Survey - One of the activities that constitutes a CRDR.

The control room survey is a staticnverification of the control room performed by comparing the ex.isting control room instrumentation and layout with selected human engineering design criteria, i.e.,

checking the control room match to the physical capabilities and limitations of the human operator.

Elements of a Utility CRDR Implementation Process-

' Necess,ary parts of cohesive CRDR implementation process that a utility considers in developing and reviewing its implementation plan and schedule.

Emergency Dperating Procedures (EOPs) - Plant procedures directing the operator actions necessary'to mitigate the consequences of transients and accidents that cause plant

-parameters to exceed reactor protection setpoints, engineered safety features setpoints, or other appropriate technical limits.

Emergency Procedures Guidelines (EPGs)

Guidelines for response to transients and accidents developed by the Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG) that provide the bases for plant-specific EOPs.

f.

Human Engineering Discrepancy (HED)

-A characteristic of the existing control room that coes not comply with the human engineering criteria used in the control room design review.

Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee (NUTAC) for CRDR - Representatives from various nuclear utilities and INPO organi=ed to define areas of CRDR. implementation for which an overall industry effort to provide assistance to individual utilities in completing Task I.D.1, NUREG-0737.

S (5)

s i

j l

l Operational Experience Review - One of the activities that constitutes a CRDR.

The operating experience review screens plant operating documents and operator experience to discover human. engineering shortcomings that have caused, or could have caused, actual operating problems in the past.

Review Teem '-- A group of individuals responsible for directing the CRDR.

Safety Parameter Display Systems (SPDS) - An aid to the control room operating crew for use in monitoring the_ status of critical safety functions (CSFs) that constitute the basis for I

plant-specific, symptom-oriented EOPs.

Subject Matter Expert (SME) - An individual who, by-virtue of training and experience, possesses in-depth knowledge in a specific subject area.

Task Analysis - The systematic process of i'dentifying and examining operator tasks in order to identify conditions and instrumentation associated with the performance of a task.

In the CRDR context, task analysis is used to determine the individual tasks that must be

_ completed to allow successful emergency operation.

.This. activity verifies the control room information available to the information requirements of the emergency operating tasks.

- Validation - The process of ' determining whether the control _ room operating crew can perform their tasks effectively given_the control room instrumentation, procedures,'and training.

In-the CRDR context, validation implies a dynamic

-m performance evaluation.

Verification - The process'of determining whet'her instrumentation, controls, and other equipment present meets the~ specific requirements of the emergency. tasks performed by operators.

In the CRDR context, verification implies a static check e

of_ instrumentation a' gainst human engineering criteria.

(6)

gy-y =; :- - =

s.

~.

4 3.O PLANN'ING PHASE

~

~

3.1 iCRDR. REVIEW TEAM 4

'ihe ultimate responsibility for the VEGP CRDR will reside with the:GPC General Manager, Vogtle

' Nuclear Operations.

Figure 1 shows the on site project organization.

The day-to-day conduct of the_. review, however, will be the responsibility of a-review team established specifically for this j

CRDR.

.The review team will provide the management

- oversight to ensure the integration of the project sobjectives and to fulfill the intent of the review.

The review team is responsible for planning, scheduling, and coordinating the total, integrated CRDR.

The review team.will be composed of members of the VEGP Operations and Engineering departments.

. 3.2.

REVIEW-TEAM STRUCTURE The review team is'a multi-disciplined team of individuals with the wide range of skills necessary to perform-the. design review.

The team

- includes-the following, personnel:

Edward J.'Kozinsky - r view team leader John D.-Hopkins.

- Senior reactor operator

Riley R.

Johnson

- operations technical advisor Alan L.'-James

- instrumentation.and controls

~

~ specialist alternate Greg L.-

Hooper

- instrumentation and controls

~

specialist Paul'M. Kochery-

- design engineer

• The core" team will be supplemented, as required, by other disciplines such as mechanical, electrical, and industrial engineering;-training;.

computer. operations; procedures; Licensing; health physics;~and emergency preparedness.- During the course of'the review, any additional specialists T(e'.g.,

lighting, acoustics) required for specific

. tasks'will-be made available to the review team,

=as>needed.

h v

49 9

(7)

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

.w l

FIGURE 1 CRDR ORGANIZATION

General. Manager, Vogtle' Nuclear Operations G.

BOCKHOLD j

- 1

\\l/

t Manager, Unit-Operations l

l-H.

WALKER i

^

s i

\\t/

l Operations Superintendent :

I W.

F. KITCHENS i

\\l/

CRDR-Project Review Tream Leader E. - J. KOZINSKY t

'\\l/-

\\l/

i i Core Review Team !

Discipline-Support i i

-J.

D.

HOPKINS-i AS NEEDED R.

R.

JOHNSON I

'l_

~

A.'L.

JAMES I

P.

M < KOCHERY G.

L.

HOOPER-l' e

~

3.2.1 Review Team Leader The review team leader will be E.

J.

Ko insky.

He will~ provide administrative and technical direction for'the project and has responsibility for the project.

Access to information,.

facilities, and individuals providing useful or necessary input to the team will be coordinated by the review team leader.

He will provide a

. cohesive force for the various VEGP department personnel' involved with this project.

Plant operations personnel provide input to the review team'through daily contact with the review team leader.

It will'be the responsibility of the review team leader to resolve human factors opinions on methodology, technique, review findings, assessment, and HED corrective actions that dissent with the majority opinion of the CRDR Review Team.

The Reveiw Team Leader will also act as the human factors specialist in the project and insure task performance quality is maintained at a level i

necessary for a valid and comprehensive review.

3.' 2. 2 :

' Instrument and Controls (I&C) Specialists The I&C specialists will assist in the identification of plant system design features and will serve as the review team e'xpert on the capabilities and limitations of controls and instruments.

The I&C' specialists'also will

-avide input-to the team dur.ng the assessment phase of the review, especially when the review team considers proposals for mitigating HEDs.

3.2.3 Senior Reactor Operator (SRO)

One SRO (certified) from VEGP will serve as a member of the core review team.

The SRO will assist in identifying operator tasks and will serve as the review team expert on the operational constraints for manipulations of plant systems.

S

O (8) 4 e

E i3.2.4-Design Engineer The. design engineer will assist in the

> ~

p Y

identification of plant. system design goals and functions and will serve as'the review team expert T

- on-the factors affecting the design _ decisions at the plant.-

The design _ engineer will provide input or interface _with project engineering as necessary during.the analysis of functions and tasks for any-plant systems and duri_ng the assessment, implementation, and effectiveness phases of the CRDR.

h 3.3 REVIEW TEAM ACTIVITIES Review team activities will include development of methodologies, procedures, and documentation for.

the review, assessment of discrepancies, establishment of the overall. plan and schedule for the CRDR, and. integrating all action items.

The

- review team will. develop, or have developed, all reports relating to-the CRDR and ensure that

- appropriate reports are submitted to GPC management-for review and approval.

3.4 REVIEW TEAM ORGANIZATIONAL INTERFACES X.

3.4.~1.

Site 1 Interfaces LIn order to perf orm the CRDR expeditiously while utilizing and broadening the experience in our personnel CRDR tasks will be performed.by Operations and. Training personnel as often as

. possible, supplemented as necessary-.with technical

. sp eci ali sts'.

The review. leader will have the

~ authority to-contact the appropri' ate' supervisor of each-department to establish a cooperative working relationship with' department personnel.

O 3.4.2 Corporate Interface The review - team will exi'st as : a special project in the VEGP organization,but the normal corporate and

- si.te organization will provide an adequate structure of-authority'and supervision.

96 J

(9)

1_

r 3.4.3 Coordination

It is essential that the CRDR be coordinated with

otherLangoing activities that involve potential physical changes to the plant, such as the

. construction 1and: manning of eme gency response facilities'(ERFs).

To ensure.that such coordination takes place, the review team leader will: coordinate with and provide input to all ongoing work on ERFs and.the control room.

?

3.5

-REVIEW-TEAM ORIENTATION Each member of-the review team will bring their

-own:in-depth knowledge of specific topics to the team.-

It is important, however, that the review team be able to conduct.the CRDR from a common

, basis of understanding.-

The entire review team

~

~

will Undergo an orientation program to provide each' team member _with certain basic knowledge requirements.

The purpose of the orientation is to acquaint each team member with-the other disciplines represente'd on the team, not to make each team member an. expert in all

. specialties.

3.5.1 -

Human Factors Orientation provided for the review team will

. familiarize the team with principles of human factors and_their application to the control room review.

Included-in this area will be a brief synopsis of the history of the CRDR requirement and its ultimate goals.

This orientation area will4be slanted toward those review team members with little or no background in human engineering.

6.

-3.5.2 Emergency Response Guidelines.(ERG)

Orientation on the development and status of Westinghouse ERGS will. provide review team members with a basis for the tasks analysis phase of the CRDR.

O o

9 N-(10)

=_

- = _.

4

• =

3.5.3

' Post ^ Accident Monitoring System (PAMS) 1 rientation on the current status of Regulatory O

Guide (RG) '1.97 instrumentation at VEGP will assist the review team in integrating the CRDR

.with RG 1.97 implementation.

3. 5 '. 4 -

CRDR Familiarization Any' support personnel participating in the CRDR

.will: r.eceive an overvies indoctrination of the CRDR and ' specific i~nstruction on the methodologies for performing their support tasks.

Miscellaneous 3.5.5

'During the course of the review, other areas

~

. requiring orientation will be identified and

.obtained to meet the needs.

3.6 USE OF' CONSULTANTS

~

^

During the course of the review GPC may contract

. with an. appropriate consulting firm to'obtain additional. personnel skilled in Human Factors Engineering; however, this is not currently

pl anned. -

4.0

. EXECUTION PHASE The objective of the CRDR is to determine the extent to which the VEGP control room provides the operators with' sufficient information to complete their: required functions and-task responsibilities efficiently under. emergency conditions.

The review also will determine.the human engineering

' suitability!of the designs of the_ instrumentation

~and equipment.in the VEGP c'ontrol room.

This section of the implementation plan _ describes the i

process that will be used to accomplish those

.overall objectives.

s s

'4. 1 OPERATING EXPERIENCE. REVIEW The Vogtle Electric Generating Plant is a two-unit

. Westinghouse pressurized water reactor (PWR).

The-E

-plant is under-construction with fuel load for I ~

a:four-loop design with a net electrical output of Unit l' scheduled for September 1986.

Each unit is l

1 j

a S

(11)

r-1157 MWe.

With.no operating history, the on site experience of. operational personnel and data from plant operation documents will provide little information for the CRDR.

Acccrdingly the Operating Experience Review will focus primarily on-industry experience at similar plants and consider experience gained from the VEGP plant-specific simulator.

Two separate steps are involved in reviewing

. operating' experience.

The first is to review available and applicable historical documentation pertaining to plant-specific and generic occurrences.

The second step is to survey operating personnel.

Operating personnel surveys should identify specific problem areas in the VEGP control room and, in particular, should point out

, problems that occur in normal operation.

r 4.1.,1 Historical Documentation Review It is-recognized that documentation originating elsewhere in the industry should be reviewed to ascertain whether or not generic problems have been found that'might relate to VEGP.

-A mechanism exists at VEGP f or reviewing all-Significant

~

Operating Experience Reports (SOERs) and Significant Event Reports (SERs) distributed by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO).

These reports are screened routinely for applicability to VEGP' systems.

The final generic documentation to be reviewed

. will be Licensee Event Reports (LERs) from plants of the same design vintage and vendor type as VEGP.

Since INPO maintains a. complete LER data base, they will be requested to provide VEGP with

{

a-printout of LERs sorted using the following characteristics:

/

LERs from:

Westinghouse PWR Listing errors by:

licensed operators Involving either:

human error or

-s procedural deficiency 9

9 C

6 (12)

~

t-

n :-

The CRDR team leader, with the assistance of a Reactor Operator will review the appropriate SOER and SER reports from the most recent three year period and the LER Summary.

Copies of those

' involving control room operator, procedural, and/or control board equipment failure and/or design arrangement errors will be obtained.

The reports obtAined will be screened to determine if the report describes and documents a control room problem.

A controi room problem is_ defined as one that meets one or more of the following criteria:

o Equipment referenced (valve / pump controls, displays, indicators, etc.) must be in the physical confines of the control room or remote shutdown panel.

~~

o Procedure steps referenced should be acccmplished within the physical confines of the control room or remote shutdown panel..

o Personral error referenced must have occurre:t in the control room on equi pmer. t in the control room or remote L.

shutdown panel or entailed a deviation from procedures that were to be accomplished in the control room or. remote shutdown panel.

Reports that pass the above selection ced.teria will be further reviewed to determine if similar potential for error exists at VEGP due to HED.

4.1'. 2 Operating Personnel Survey The most valuable source of data.on operational s

problems is the person who has operated the plant..

The intent of the. operating personnel survey is to gain as much firsthand information as possible on actual and potential operational errors.

The survey will consist of a self-administered questionnaires and alter *nate problem notification procedures.-

i e

O 4

(13)

=_ _____ -__:_.-.

4

,.411.2.1

-Questionnaire An'open-ended,-self-administered questionnaire approach will be. adopted.

By employing this-

-method, most of the operating personnel can be

. questioned and this maximizes the use of their time and1that of CRDR team..The survey will cover 10 content-topics.

Specifically, the areas covered will be as follows:

o workspace layout and environment a

panel design o

annunciatcr warning systea o

communications

'a process computers.

o corrective and preventive maintenance o

procedures o-staffing.and job' design o

training o.

other areas for operator comment' 4.1.2.2 Administration A cover letter will be attached to each questionnaire.- -The cover letter will (1)'exclain

.the purpose,.(2) describe the questionnaire and provide. instructions, and (3) convey what will be.

done with the results.

A preliminary draft of the

~

questionnaire-and cover letter is included as.

~

Questionnaires will be given to simulator trainees

+

i and Timulator instructors early in the CRDR process.

Queqtions not. relevant to simulator operation-~will be deleted from questionaires sent o

to personnel in simulator training.

Additional questionnaires will be given to control room

. operators late in the CRDR after the control room is operational.

F s

(14) t

~

~~-

f.j..

s After the questionnaires _have been completed, 0

' returne'd. and logged.in, they will be examined and reviewed on an item-by-item basis.

Responses will be; summarized,in a Questionnaire Item Summary data base.

9

~It i s anticipated.that both positive and negat'ive.

' control room _ features will be identified by the respondents.

Further. investigation, therefore,

'will be. carried out for each item on the. responses

~

'to determine.whether they are i n accordance with sound. human engineering conventions and practices.

. Positive responses that are in accordance with sound human engineering conventions and practices

'will be recorded and disseminated to every member of the-CRDR team for consideration.a subsequent review processes (e.g.,

as possible

, recommendations for corrective action-to HEDs).

Negative responses will be investigated further to identify potential HED's.

/4 1.3 Problem Reports An open ended Control Room Design Problem Report

' form-(attachment 2) will be sent to all control room and simulator personnel._ Copies will be made o

available in the control room and simulator.

This will-allow any problem noted to be promptly

. r ep orted.-

These Problem Reports will be entered in a data base and evaluated for possible HED's.

4.1.4

-Follow-up

' Fallow-up interviews may be conducted to clarify Linformation obtained on questionnaires.

These follow up interviews will-be performed by review team members.

412

. CONTROL ROOM SURVEY A survey of the existing VEGP control. room will be

. con' ducted during the CRDR.

The purpose of the-

_ survey. will be to compare the design features of.

the existing control room with applicable human engineering design guidelines.

The survey will.be

' conducted by the CRDR review team.

The survey

. team will use questionnaires, checklists, and surveys to compile information regarding the as-built. characteristics'of the VEGP control room.

e (15) w Am-

. m4 -

4.

4 mmai..

...m

- a

.--a-a4-a--

ief=-..

An extensive review of the VEGP control room was conducted in 1982.

The results of that CRDF will be reviewed, especially the HED's and their resolution.

Items previously surveyed will be compared to revision in criteria since the original work and any additional HED's identified.

Previously completed survey items will not be repeated if the Review Team determines that the duplication of effort would reyealLno new information.

4.2.1 Questionnaires, Checklists, and Surveys The NUTAC on CRDR has developed a set of questionnaires, checklists, and surveys that addresses the human engineering design

~

- considerations applicable to nuclear power plant

~

control rooms.

VEGP intends to use these survey instruments with as little modification as possible.

These documents are included in the CRDR Survey Development Guideline (INPO 83-042),

developed by INPO and the CRDR NUTAC.

The individual survey instruments are described below.

4.2.1.1 Questionnaires There are two questionnaires among the NUTAC survey instruments:

the Engineering Department Questionnaire and the Operator Questionnaire.

The Engineering Department Cuestionnaire is designed to compile information concerning the function and optional operation of various plant systems, such

' as the annunciator and emergency lighting systems.

This questionnaire also solicits information on the failure modes of. indicators and opinions about the adequacy of certai i existing system characteristics.

The purposes of the Engineering Department Questionnaire are to educate the review team concerning the design' attributes of certain plant systems and to provide an engineering input f or the assessment of HEDs later in the review process. The review team leader will distribute the Engineering Department Questionnaire to the GPC Engineering Department.

Each recipient will be requested to complete and return the questionnaires within four weeks.

e '

E (16) u

- - _ ~

4 i

Thef0perator. Questionnaire is designed to collect

-information on operating personnel's L

. experiences-good or bad--with' control room characteristics.

The items on the Operator m

Questionnaire solicit information;that depends on 7

actual' operation of the controls and displays in I

the control room.

This information is not easy to obtain using speci-fic criteria f or height, ilocation, and scaling but depends on,the

. interaction among control room instruments, procedures, layout, and staffing.

Some of the information collected during the operating experience review-is similar to that obtained with the. operator questionnaires. However, the experience review solicits more general information.

The purpose of the Operator Questionnaire is to tap'the_ operational' knowledge of VEGP personnel and relate that knowledge to the human engineering

~~

. characteristics of-the VEGP-control room.

It is not feasible'to keep all subjective opinion out of~

.the responses to such a questionnaire.

However,

-the individual, questions are posed as objectively as;possible and, by using data-from many

. individuals, isolated individual " pet peeves" will Ebe weighted lightly during the analysis of the information obtained.

The review team leader.will~ distribute the Operator Questionnaire to all Plant Operators, Shift Supervisors, and STAS at VEGP.-

The1 instructions will stipulate that the

. questionnaire items concerning controls, indicators, and-labels should be' answered on a 1.-

panel-by-panel basis.

A separate set of these questions wil1 ~ tur. included. f or each control board panel.

It also will be stressed that the

" questionnaires'should.be-completed during periods vdimi the respondent. is' in or has access to the control room but does not have operating responsibility'for the unit.

L.

Each-respondent will~be requested to complete the questionnaire within one month of.the date it is

~~

distributed.

Each respondent also will be assured

+

that responses will never be used to judge job

' performance or for any other punitive purpose.

l-l -

0-

-(17)

(:.: ~

h s

y 4

~

4.2.1.2

-Checklists Five checklists are included in the NUTAC survey

. instruments. -These are an overview checklist;.

. operator-assisted checklist; a labeling, mimics, and demarcation checklist;.a general panel checklist;-'and.a process computer checklist.

Each checklist:is designed to allow one'or two people

'to walk around.the control. room and determine whether. individual checklist items are satisfied by theJexisting control room design.

The checklists are very simple to use and, except for specific items, require very little operator

' time.

Each item in a checklist is a simple declarative sentence describing an acceptable f

design. characteristic.

.For example, item two in the overview checklist states:

" Sanitary

' Facilities and Drinking.. Water Are Easily Accessible."

If the individual (s) using the checklist make(s) the judgement that.the statement is true or correct for the control room under review,.then that item is checked off, and no ' '

o

_ further action is necessary;.concerning the characteristic.

However, if the

. user makes the judgement'that.the control room is not designed to be acceptable for a particular checklist item, an HED is' written for that

particular f acet of the design.

Some degree of judgementis involved in.various checklist' items.

However, the nature of these

' judgements is such that a common sense approach

.should result in'a consensus among individuals on the survey concerning questionable items.

-If

-situations arise where-two or more judgements

- N cannot'be reconciled,- an-HED will be written, and the' dispute will.be resolved by the review team during the assessment phase.

/

4.2.1.3l

' Surveys Nine separate surveys will be completed during the.CRDR' Survey' Activity.

The individual. surveys are the' followings h

(18) g',-

[. ;

p-.-

~

e o

' General Design Convention Survey o

Design ~ Convention Survey for Repetitive

-Groupings o

Lighting Survey

~

o Noise Survey Anthropometric ' Survey I

a o

Communication Survey o

Abbreviation and Acronym Survey o

Color-Coding Survey o

Control Room Co.nputer Survey These surveys can and will be done independently.

They function as a frame work within which various measurements can be recorded.

Some of the surveys consist of simply describing control room conventions such as color usage and instrument arrangement.

The information obtained in these surveys will be used in other CRDR activities to determine where particular instruments or systems depart from the overall convention.

For these surveys, in particular, operator input will be required to describe how certain controls function and the meaning assigned to particular colors.

It should be noted that, in general, HEDs will not be written during convention surveys.

Instead, the information obtained will be used-during assessment.

Other surveys measure certain physical quantities, such as illumina'. ton and sound level, and to compare these measurements to acceptable upper and lower limits for such quantities.

HEDs will be written for characteristics that fall outside the acceptable band.

The individuals conducting these surveys must be able to operate the appropriate measuring instruments and interpret the output properly.

GPC may elect to retain outside specialists _to operate the measuring equipment.

If not, selected personnel will be trained to use such equipment.

Regardless of who actually makes

.the measurements, review team members will be responsible for writing any HEDs resulting.

(19)

R

4.2.2 Personnel Assignments j

It is not necessary that the entire CRDR Review Team be involved in the day-to-day conduct of the control room survey.

The actual survey, with its documentation requirements, will be conducted by Review Team members supported by members of various VEGP departments.

Personnel selected to conduct the surveys will be trained to use the surveytchecklists and surveys properly.

4.3 TASK ANALYSIS The operating experience review and the control room survey will identify as HEDs control room characteristics that have caused, or nearly causedi~ problems during normal operation or HEDs that do not conform to certain human engineering design criteria.

The final activity in the CRDR execution phase, the task analysis, will identify the tasks operators must perform during emergency operation and determine whether the instrumentation, controls, and equipment are available to perform those tasks.~

In addition to determining the availability of suitable instrumentation, controls, and equipment, the

-task analysis will validate that the emergency tasks identified can be performed under simulated emergency conditions in the VEGP control room.

The task analysis will use as its' basis the Emergency Response Guidelines (ERGS) developed-by the Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG).* These ERGS have been-designed to generate plant-specific emergency operating procedures (EOPs) for Westinghouse nuclear plants.

An added benefit to using the ERGS is that the analysis done as part of the systems review can be applied to verifying the plant-specific EOPs for VEGP.

4.3.1 Task Identification Starting with specific Westinghouse ERGS, all tasks within the ERGS will be identified and analyzed to determine the instrumentation and controls required.

All Emergency Response Guidelines and Functional Recovery Guidelines will be task. analyzed.

However, these contain steps (20) w

which appear in many ERGS and FRGs.

In these cases the task analyses will completely analyze the step only once and refer to that analysis when the step is duplicated in other guidelines.

Beyond the ERG tasks to be analyzed, certain plant systems are referenced in the ERGS as resources to be used duri.ng emergency operation.

As part of the task i.dentification, the tasks necessary to use the plant systems, as they are r,equired to be used in the ERGS, will be delineated.

Any instruments and controls necessary to complete these tasks will be determined.

It is probable that the operator tasks required for specific system operation can be determined using existing VEGP documentation.

Where this is not the case, any additional analysis required to determine system-specific tasks will be performed and documented.

After the required tasks are delineated and the necessary instruments and controls identified, a two-step process will be undertaken that will (1) verify that the required instruments and controls are present in the control room and are of the appropriate range with the appropriate scales and slabels and (2) validate, with dynamic walk-through-talk-throughs, that all ERG and system-specific ste'ps can be completed in the VEGP

.)

control room by.the normal complement of operating personnel.

The methodology contained in the Emergency Response Capability (ERC) Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee (NUTAC) Component Verification and System Validation Guideline will be used to develop the actual validation procedures.

4.3.2 Verification of Instrumentation The process of verifying that the VEGP control room contains appropriate instruments and controls will be completed ~in two somewhat overlapping steps.

First, a determination will be made as to whether the instrumentation and controls necessary to make the decisions and implement the tasks identified previously are, in fact, present in the control room.

If not, any such instance will be defined as an HED and documented accordingly.

O (21) s

J y

For'each ERG the walk-through procedure will be the same.

_A. complete operating crew will be

. assembled at the control room and the crew members will.take their normal positions relative to the i

control boards.

The crew will execute the specific instructions in the ERG and to record comments and movements in response to those instructions.

The crew will by encouraged to verbalize what they are doing, why they are doing it, and which. instruments and controls they are using for each activity.

This is not a. dynamic check of the adequacy of the control room layout, but it will indicate whether

~

L or not appropriate instrumentation is available in the primary-control area to carry out the tasks called for in the ERGS.

In addition, the

' instruments and controls used to operate specific plant systems can be recorded on Task Data Forms (TDF) in Attachment 4.

The second step-of.the verification process

.consi'sts of an examination of the instrumentation and controls located ' in the first step (above) to determine its human engineering suitability-for N

the task =or decision it is_ supposed to support.

Although the. control room survey examined all control _ room instrumentation for conformance with human engineering design criteria, this verification step is required to determine if a meter, for example, has the appropriate range and

' scale gradations to support a particular ERG task or system-specific, task.

This-step will be

-accomplished by review' team personnel observing the verification. 'They'will base their

determination on the task analysis ~ HED principles in Attachment 4'and note HED's on-the TDF.

' 4.3.3 Validation of Control Room Functions The final analytical step in the task analysis is to validate that the tasks. delineated earlier are indeed the. tasks that_must be performed to carry out emergency functions and that those-tasks can be' completed in the VEGP control room by the normal operating crew.

This evaluation will be accomplished in conjunction with EOP validation on the'VEGP Unit 1 simulator.

Next, specific h

(22) 4-~~e

~-

~

transients will be selected that will require operators to use the ERGS.

These transients will be'run on'the VEGP simulator, and a VEGP operating crew will perform the actions that are required by the EOPs.

The transients to be run on the' simulator have been chosen.from the list of scenarios used by the Westinghouse Owners' Group to validate their ERGS on the Ca11'away Nuclear Power Plant _ Training Simulator (Summary Report - Emergency Response Guidelines Validation Program, Westinghouse, WCAP-10204, September 1982).

The following specific transients will be run during the simulator walk-throughs:

o reactor trip o

spurious SI o

anticipated transient'without scram (ATWS) o stuck open pressurizer PORV o

small break LOCA with loss of off-site power o

' failed'open S/G safety valve o

steam line leak inside containment a

steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) with secondary break o

SGTR with stuck open S/G PORV o

feedline break inside containment and SGTR

?...

o loss of all feedwater o

spurious SI followed by LOCA As with walk-thro' ughs, a complete operating crew will be assembled at the simulator.

The crew members-will take their normal positions relative to'the control boards.

An observation team will be assigned to record the crew's movements and to note any deviations from the appropriate ERGS.

If needed to gather appropriate data, two runs will be made for each transients.

The first ran will O

(23)

r___-_

normally be made at real time so that the events in the simulator will occur in the same time frame

~

as in.the actual plant. A second run may be made in slow time so the operating crew members can describe their actions to the observation crew and tell the observation crew which instruments are being used at any given time.

It appears,that it will require about five eight-hour shifts to complete the tr.ansients.

At least two crews.will be run through all the scenarios.

The simulator runs will be video-taped and sound recorded.

The tapeu serve an archival purpose.

Specific analysis of the tapes will only be conducted if sufficient information is not available.from other sources.

4.3.4 Data Recording and Analysis Various data will be recorded by the members of the observation team (see Section 4.3.5) during the simulator walk-throughs.

During the real time run, the movements of each crew member will be traced on a control room outline drawing by an observer.

This information will be analyzed to determine the m,ain paths between panels and panel sections and also to identify any significant need to access back panel indications or controls.

In addition to crew movements, observers will trace the path of the crew through the appropriate ERGS and plant systems.

Notations will be made of

-significant communication links used during each transient and any instances of crew member conflict (either physical access problems or communication problems) will be noted.

If an optional slow time run is conducted, the observation team will question the operating crew

.concerning the instrumentation they are using at any point in time and their strategy for dealing with the particul,ar transient.

This information will be cross-checked with similar information from the walk-throughs and any obvious discrepancies noted.

The review team will use the control room walk-thrus and simulator runs to determine if HEDs were manifested due to the layout of the control room and the dynamic interaction of the operating crew during emergency operation.

(24)

r

'4.3.5 Personnel Assignments t

'The task identification described in Section 4.3.1 is characterized by extensive analysis of ERGS and emergency resource systems before any walk-through validation is done.

The analysis of system function and operator tasks will be conducted by members'of the review team, aided by operations personnel.

The full review team will review all

.such pre-analysis work.

After the pre-analysis is complete, the control room and simulator walk-throughs will require the

)

intermittent participation-of some review team members.-

The CRDR team leader will be responsible for scheduling crews to walk through the selected L

ERGS in the control room and for scheduling both crew and simulator time for transient runs in the VEGP simulator.

A group of trained observers'will be required for the walk-through activities, although the number of people in this group will change, depending on

- whether the control room or the simulator is being used. :For the dynamic simulator validation, each cre,w member will be tracked,by a s.eparate observer, whereas the control room walk-throughs will not be as time-critical and a person may observe more than one, or all, control room personnel.

e

~

5.0 ASSESSMENT

PHASE 5.1 OBJECTIVES The objectives of this phase of the CRDR are as follows:

o Evaluate the significance of the HEDs defined in the previous phases of the CRDR.

o Where HEDs are found to be of minor significance, describe the technical and operational basis for such a finding.

o Where HEDs are found to.be of potentially major significance, formulate changes to the control room, procedures, operator training, or any combination thereof to mitigate those HEDs.

e (25)

~

.w.

^

Of these objectives, the most conceptually difficult is to evaluate HED significance.

A fairly straightforward set cf criteria for HED evaluation is described-in the next section.

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA Human engineering discrepancies found during the control room survey, the operating experience review, and the task analysis will be evaluated by

'the review team for their potential to adversely affect emergency operation A categorization-scheme will be used that requires each HED to be assessed by the review team and prioritized for resolution.

The following four categories are designed to be unique so a consensus can be obtained from the review team as to which category each.HED should be assigned.

o Category 1 (Safety Significant) - HEDs that have caused errors in or are judged likely to affect adversely the management of. emergency conditions by control room operators.

o

' Category 2 - HEDs that are known to have caused problems during normal operation.

o Category 3 - HEDs that can be " fixed" with simple and inexpensive enhancements, so-called " paint, tape, and label" (PTL) fixes.

This may seem to be an implementation rather than an assessment category.

However, there probably will be HEDs that the review team feels are very easy to fix but difficult to assess as to effect.on emergency operation.

This category is for such HEDs.

o Category 4 - HEDS that do not fit into Categories 1 through 3.

These HEDs are judged by the review team as unlikely to affect emergency operation, not documented as causing problems during normal operation, and not simple or cheap to fix.

The precise method to be'used to put HEDs into these categories has not been delineated.

It is envisioned that comparing HEDs to higher level principles, such as those listed in the CRDR NUTAC (26)

T q

4 s

h

<h; r

^

1a~

~..;,

a

,s s

N,,

document Human Engir.eering Principles for Control

'l Room Design' Review, will help determine which HEDs g#

are likely to result prb actual performance

3. ? c problens.

,Those H,EDs that are likely to affect

'Q,

performance will be further categorized as described above.

.j

.l Any review t, cam member who feel's strongly that an 7

HED has been hssessed with a too low priority will c

be able'to put that opinion in writi,ng and have s

the written statement included in the permanent m.

reccrd of'the CRDR.

5.3 RESOLUTION CF HEDS One' of[the f'inal responsibilities of the review team will'be to propose solutions to the HEDs that have been identified and categorized.

There are, in general, many ways to solve specific human engineering problems.

Correction of HED's may be accomplisned by enhancement (use of color, minics, cr labels),' class improvements (grouped indicators or controls by, type or model number) or individual q

vy

' discrepancy corrections (case-by-case). In some t(

a change.in training or procedures may

cases, H

]7 suffice,.

3:

- p, If it is determined that the correction should

- i.'.'

involv.e movement, modification, addition, or v;

deletion of instrumentation, then these N,+ ~

corrections willibe evaluated with respect to

^

(-

their impact on thy existing control room, including operator' performance, training, and procedures.

Before any'large-scale changes are qt approved, the prgoosed modifications will be built

. j, '

'into the simulator, if practical, and evaluated to h, *. /. C y

sl determine their effectiveness.

Before any changes

• Lc y-are made, even small-scale changes, a review by

.[ ;

operations pers,onnel will be obtained.

y

/

I Criteria re11ted to several characteristics will l'

3 be used by the re' iew team when evaluating v

candidate. proposals for HED correction.

At least 40 y, '

the following characteristics of each proposal will be considered:

^"-

V 3;n t

+.

lfm s a

k.

1

\\

' (27) l

,'8 t k_

..g

_ c. p 2

.1

.. ~

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

p W

ct impact on operating effectiveness o

system safety.

z i

o cost o.

impact on plant availability o

consistency with existing features compliance with regulatory design o.

requirements I

o

' impact on control room staffing o

impact on operator' training programs L

.6.0

' DOCUMENTATION PHASE L

Adequate documentation and document control creates a traceable and' systematic translation of information from one phase of the CRDR to the next. The!CRDR team will have i-access to a complete,7up-to-date set of documents to manage and execute the various steps and. phases of.the control' room

. reviews.

i This section describes the. functional requirements

'that will be fulfilled by the documentation system GPC will use to support its control' room design

' review.

L

16. 1 GENERAL DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS

' ' 'e Many-documents will be referenced and produced Jduring.the CRDR project.

The documentation system will meet the.following requirements:

o

-provide a. record of all documents.used by the review team as references during.various

. phases of the CRDR.

I o

provide.a record of'all correspondence generated or received by the review team during the review u

i.,

i (28)

m,

. c m,

3 p

21;

, y-, -% y.

w k i

..o s

.'Q'

)[

. fr. '

I i

l

..j s

st

' 47 U.

c3 o

provide a record of all documents produced by jj the; review team as project output

- c o

allow.an audit-path to be generated through C

the project documentation 3y.

' ', s :

o-aretain' project-files in a me.nner that allows j/ future access to help determine the effects

?

-of control room dhanges proposed in the N

Mtiture.

v m-y

, REFERENCES

.6. 2 The following documents have been identified.as

'pb.

9 possible reference material to be-used during the V'

-review project. -As-the-review progresses, it is anticipated that additional material and 1

. N c.

W.

b references will be identified.

y, o

VEGP Final Safety Analysis Report Westingho'use Emergency Response Guidelines o

t

}

(ERGS)

• y sg y'

f o5 Regulatory Guides (e.g.,

RG 1.97 and RG 1.47)

o NRC. guidance documents (e.g.,

NUREG-0700)

~,p o,,, VEGP trAinino. materials

~

n

-As xr

~

clonted1! room drawings (f l oor pl'an, panel.

o As.'

F J,

l ayo'uthetc. )

g i

_i n

'"tf o-control room photographs (panel photographs,

• l etc'.)

,f' s

.hu, man factors de, sign information

'o-ys Van Cott & KinkAo'e s,-

McCormick o

gW a

T:

' MIL-STD-1472C o

~

.o

= is

" piping'and instrumentation: diagrams (P& ids)

E s

.c(

(

yg gy o-computse softwaraidescriptio'ns,

~

a

~"

Y,a #

o.:

resulta'of preliminary control room review i'

( !]

. activities a

L *%

n

• y'

~ '

j s

3

(

e p

O:;,

s A

a (29) e, F

',5 %,

a q'

_. y -r :

L m

x-x

It-t-

'*~

o.

instrument tabulations o

-annunciator and label engraving lists l-o_

.INPO/TVA Pilot Systems-Review (INPO 82-014) o CRDR NUTAC. documents o

~VEGP abbreviation and acrpnym lists 6.3 REVIEWsDOCUMENTATION Through the review-process, documents will be processed to record data, analyses, and findings.

Whenever practical and appropriate, standard forms

~

will.be developed and used.

The bulk of the i'

documentation generated by the review process will be necessary to do the following:

o document the criteria used for each review activity o

record the results of the survey, operating experience review, and systems review o<

compile HEDs and associated data for review

(

and assessment i

In order ~to facilitate systematizing and recording

[,

control' room design review activities, GPC will developed _ standard forms _ based on INPO NUTAC reports. However experience gained in the review may require changes to_these forms.

6.4

SUMMARY

-' REPORT

~Upon completion of the CRDR, a summary of the results.will be prepared and submitted to the NRC for. review.

The1 summary report will describe the results of the CRDR and will be submitted within six months after completion of the review.

This report will summarine the review process, provide descriptions of~the identified human engineering L

discrepancies (HEDs), detail proposed corrective actions and present implementation schedules for each action.

Details of the CRDR, along with complete documentation, will be available for NRC evaluation and review.

w.-

f-L (30)

[c

6-

-The, final report will specify the personnel who participated in the Control Room Design Review and delineate their qualifications.

It also will indicate any modifications or revisions made to the implementation plan submitted to the NRC.

-These may become necessary periodically throughout the CRDR and~will be described by the review team in the repor-t.

.y A summary of the Operating. Experience Review

~

processes and results will be contained in the final report.

The types of historical reports reviewed and'the period of time they covered will be provided.

The final report for the.CRDR will provide a

. summary of processes involved in the task analyris an'd will contain the following o

charts or, list of major systems and subsystems, and their major components o

task descriptors, organized by system Data management procedures used to record review data and provide a data base for the review will be described.

Samples of forms used in the control room survey will be provided.

Procedures used for verification.of-task. performance capabilities and validation of control room functions will be summarized.

. Details of,the. assessment procedure used in this process'will be summarized'and supporting documentation provided.

HED's and their resolution will be summarized.

Identified design improvements, whether safety-related or not, will be described.

~

Implemented or proposed design solutions and implementation schedules will be described.

Such scheduling will be governed by priorities, and any

~~ 5 departure from.this prioritization will be Lexplained.

Any d'eviation from the proposed CRDR methodology described herein will be discussed and appropriate sxplanation provided.

+

'( 31 )

J v

a 7.0 CORRECTION PHASE The actions required to resolve significant HEDs will vary, as will the time required to complete proposed changes.

It is essential, however, to

. set some end point for completing the proposed changes-for each HED category.

~7.1 SCHEDULING

~

The'following schedule will.become goals for GPC when planning the activities appropriate to resolve significant HEDs.

Category Completion 1

As soon as practical after a specific solution has been approved by GPC management.

Prior to fuel loading.

2 As soon as practical.

No later than first refueling outage after the review.

3 No specific completion-date.

Corrective action will be based on economic judgement.

-4 No specific completion date.

Not planned.

Impractical with current-technology.

'It should be recognized that these completion

' dates are goals and that some changes may still be pending after these dates..GPC will make all reasonable efforts to meet these goals.

7.2 IMPLEMENTATION Modifications required to resolve significant HEDs will be implement'd usidg approved GPC Nuclear e

' Operations or GPC Nuclear Construction Department proc'edures.

Since the plant modification process for selected HEDs may take' considerable amount of time for implementation, the implementation and follow-up activities will rely upon normal site c.

-e (32)

s organization.

Therefore, it is' imperative that the' HED(s) 'and~ the resulting modification request (s) are very explicit as to what is to-be done.

)

j

<The use of exi. sting plant modification procedures ensures that plant operators will be made aware of impending-changes and will be trained to use the modified control panels.and sy, stems,;since the current station-modification process'is to involve

-thef VEGP training department in the early stages of the modification.

This approach to the. implementation of changes will help ensure the success of the modifications

~

and will give the line organization a tool for developing their techniques for long-term support

."of the control room.-

8.0

' EFFECTIVENESS PHASE During the correction phase of the CRDR, proposed modificaticns and enhancements were evaluated for their effectiveness-in solving the deficiencies that prompted.them.

However, no feasible evaluation method can account beforehand for all~

p-the circumstances encountered during actual-

~

[

operation.

Recognizing'the need for operational

. feedback on the usability'of control room changes resulting-from the CRDR, GPC-will delineate an operational feedback path at VEGP.

8.1 <

VALIDATION OF' CHANGES.

w The validationuof control room changes will be accomplished using two different methods.

First, after-changes.are installed and have been operational for approximately 60 days, the review team from the CRDR will inspect the control room to ensure that,fas installed, the' changes caccurately reflect their original-recommendations regarding particular HEDS.

If-the review team consensus is:that any or all of the installed

1. 'V changes do not' meet the intent of their.

recommendations or for some'other reason do not mitigate the HEDs for.~which they were designed, the review team leader will report those findings.

^

Ni Each installed change will be placed in one or more of four' categories by the review team.

These

~

categories.are as follows:

(33)

L..._......

a

w -

a o_ 'n i

i

The' change 1 reflects the intent of.the o

recommendation and appears to mitigate the

=

associated HED(s).

o

.The change. reflects the intent of.the recommendation,.but the problem associated with.the HED(s) appears to still be present.

o 1The change does not reflect the intent.cf I the recommendation.:

~

Lo

The change has created an HED other than the 7 - 1 HED;that prompted the change.

Any'HED-still present after,the changes or created

.by-the changes will?be treated as=a problem reported during operating, and it will be 1 evaluated byfthe: plant engineering staff.

} S.' 2 -.

. FUTURE CONTROL ROOM: CHANGES In order to ensure adequate human' factors considerations for1 control room. changes that are considered.after-the-CRDR is completed, the-

-results of the CRDR will be.available for -

tengineering and operations personnel to reference.

JThis'will provide-afstandard to evaluate the human factorsEacceptability-of;all proposed-control l room Emodifications.

The' control room basis, or curr,ent configuration, wi-ll be reflected in the. simulator maintained at e

-the VEGP site.

This will provide =a tool for-use when; evaluating. proposed control' room changes befor.e'the changes are'actually-implemented.-

• t "

9.0

. COORDINATION WITH OTHER ACTIVITIES.

The.CRDR process. described in-this implementation

-/

. pl an ' will-be coordinated with _ other post-TMI

' activities in several - ways..

These activities includeLthe followings b;

^

il o-

' upgrading emergency operating procedures o'

upgrading. emergency; response facilities, including the development and installation of lan;SPDS rr d

o

-installation'of post-accident monitoring instrumentation (RG 1.97) p.

N

.(34)

m

. ; =. -c r

F

~

1 9.1

. EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURES The: Task Analysis portion of the CRDR will use r

.the Westinghouse ERGS.as its. starting point.

cThus, the task of-upgrading emergency procedures l

is inherently integrated into the CRDR.

The simulator validation of the task analysis will be combined with the.VEGP EOP validation' program.

9. 2 -

' SAFETY' PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM It'is the intent of GPC to use the task analysis I"

, phase of the CRDR to define the operator information requirements during conditions of emergency' operation.

These requirements will define many of the plant inputs to the SPDS and the display format for the CRTs required.,The SPDS will be surveyed against those requirements.

It is anticipated'that-some HEDs defined during the review and judged to be significant by the review team.may be resolved by incorporating certain features into the SPDS and associated displays..This will serve to further integrate

'the-SPDS into the-CRDR.

9.3:

REGULATORY GUIDE 1.97 The design of RG 1.97 instrumentation is.

essentially complete.

This instrumentation will be evaluated in the CRDR survey and task analysis.

a n

.10.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA This implementation plan'was developed to describe the process whereby GPC.will conduct the-human factors review of the-VEGP control-room.

A sincere effort has been made by GPC-to-ensure'that all. major aspects of an' effective CRDR have been-considered during the development of this f

implementation plan. ~Since GPC is-committed to perform their CRDR as described in this document, b.

the acceptability of the CRDR also should be

[

. judged'against this document and supporting b

procedures.

s i

p a

(35) t'

t m

' ATTACHMENT 1 OPERATING EXPERIENCE-OUESTIONNAIRE-s NOTE.-

'The following questions are. listed

- in a format designed to minimize space

- requirements.

-The actual' questionnaires wi11 contain one question ~per page, single-sided.

t 4

6 O

e I

m k

i S

6 h,

4

+

0 6

4 1

r,

4

-a,u

,,#-7.

3,-.,---,

y-,_,n,,a,._w,,33,w..w.w,rw,..

,,w p y,-,- m w,_-.pmm n,,,,,

,,w

,,,m.,_y,,,y-.

.__z.

k

-Inthraffica Cerrs::p:nd:nca Georgia Power n DATE:

June-7, 1984.

-- RE:.

Plant Vogtle - Units-1 & 2 Control Room Design Review File: X5AB03 System: 4603

' Log:977 Security Ccde: NC Keyword: Control' Room

.FROM:.

E. J. Kozinsky

TO:

SR0 Trainees Simulator' Instructors In order to improve the operational reliability of the Vogtle Control

Room, I' will be conducting a Control Room Design Review to identify and correct. problems in the Control. Room. <An important part of that review is to review operating experience to discover human engineering shortcomings that have caused or almost caused actual operating problems in the past.

.Your'recent experience in the simulator is a valuable source of this type information.

Please take a few minutes to fill out the attached

^

questionnaire.

This will help me identify problems and correct-them.

Do not' feel limited by the structure of the questionnaire. Use the

. blank forms at the back of the packet to point out any problem area you noted that-did not seem to fit the questions.- Be specific in identify-

-ing controls or displays.

Suggest changes, this is your chance to make

~it right.

Thank you for your help.

~

EJK/pc Attachment-xc:

~W. F. Kitchens -

P. D.. Rushton' O

e

,.wAn 4 6 4

-se, em A4.

e,,

.4.-

OPERATING EXPERTENCE QUESTIONNAIRE.

The following questions are grouped into 5 content areas. Specifically, the areas to be covered are the following:

Jo panel design o

annunciator system o

' control room layout o

training.

. o comments The main ideaLin this questionnaire is to get you to tell me two thins.; about each topic.

First, and most important, I want to know if the particular. characteristic of the control room has ever caused or almost' caused an operation probi(m.

Specifically, has the design led or allowed yjnt to do something that you didn't intend to do?

If

.so, I want you to describe those incidents.

If not,'have you seen someone else do something wrong or misoperate a piece of equipment because of the design?

I am particularly interested in incidents that caused plant. transients or challenged a safety system.

If equipment was misoperated, but the error was discovered quickly and corrected, I want to know that, too..

The second thing I would like to know is any aspect of the sys'tems covered in a topic area that helped you during plant operation. These

- might be characteristics of particular systems that let you operate more quickly or efficiently.

Perhaps there are features.that let you know when a tr.ansient is eminent.

If you personally do not know of any such features, have you seen someone else benefit from s.?ecific des'ign #eatures?

I know that this is a' fairly tedious task, but I want to assure you

~-

that I will do something about control room features that have caused or nearly caused operational problems. Thank you in advance for help-ing make Vogtle a better place to work.

9

,, -, -., -,n,

- - -,n.

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

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

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

,,~o,,.

WORK SPACE LAYOUT AND ENVIRONMENT 1.

Has the layout'of the control panels in the control room ever caused you or someone you have seen to either misoperate or be unable-to operate any plant system?

If so, please describe.

This question refers only to the placement of the panels.themselv,es, not to the arrangement of controls and displays on the panels.

~

2.

Is there some aspect of the panel layout _that helps you operate particular systems or the plant in general?

Please describe.

3.

Has-the layout of control room equipment other than panels (e.g.,' computer console) ever caused you or someone you have'seen either_to misoperate or be unable to operated any plant system?-

If_so, please describe.

4.

Does the layout of control room equipment help you operate.particular plant systems or the plant in general'?

Please describe.

5.

Has the arrangement of furniture-in the control room ever hindered your access to the operating area or obstructed you view of important displays?

If so, please describe.

6.

Does theffurniture arrangement provide easy access to the operating area and allow you to see the plant instrumentation?

Please describe any features-that are particularly helpful.

7.

Has the lighting in the control room, either normal or emergency, ever_ caused you or-someone you have seen to-either misoperate or be unable to operate any plant system?

If so, please describe.

This question refers to both the level of control room lighting and to other characteristics such as glare, color, etc.

8.

Is there some feature of the control-room lighting that helps you operate particular systems or the plant in l

general?

Please describe.

9. -

Has the noise -level in the control room ever caused missed verbal communication or misinterpretation of instructions between you and other members of the operating l

staff?

If so, please describe.

This question refers both to the ambient (plant) noise and to the noise caused by l,

alarms,' phones, etc.

i 2

l

~

l

10. Has the temperature and/or humidity in the control room ever. reached a level, either high or low, at which you were very uncomfortable?

Please describe.

11. Has the temperature / humidity ever reached the level, either high or low, that control room instrumentation or equipment malfunctione,d7 Please describe.

9 e

O O '

/

e O

e

.9 4

D

. 1 PANEL DESIGN

1..

Has'the layout of controls and displays on any particular= panel (s) ever caused you or.someone you have seen to misoperate any plant system?

If so, please describe.

'2.

Does the layout of controls-and displays on any panel (s) help you cperate particular systems or tbe plant in general?

Please describe.

.3..

Have you ever activated a piece of plant equipment by accidentally bumping.a control that is placed in a precarious location?

If so, please describe.

..;ri 4.

Have you eve." had to leave the main operating area to activate a control or read a display during an emergency or time-critical situation?

If so, please describe.

This question' refers mainly to back panel controls and indicators.

5.

Have you ever had to put temporary-labels, Dymo type,

. grease pencil markings, or other clarification on a control

~

room panel to make systems easier to. operate and understand?

If so, please describe.

9 0

4 e

09 8

a s

i l

i s

+

1 s

g l,'

4 v.

ANNUNCIATORS 11.

Has the layout or operation of the annunicator system ever caused you or someone you have.seen to misoperate any plant: system?..Please describe.

-2.

Has the layout or operation of the annunciator system

'ever, misled you as to what'is happening in the plant?

If

~

- so,- pl ease i descri be.

3.

Are there any features of the annunciator system that you? find helpful for. plant. operation or.for diagnosing off-normal occurrences?

Please describe.

c 4. ' In-general, have you used the information supplied by

, z'.

the annuryciator system more f or normal, abnormal, or emergency operation?

5.

Are there any annunicators that you consider essential for operation during emergency or post-trip conditions?

If

.so, please list them.

\\

'- pu l

iti e

' *6,

e O

s f

ee

- I

/,e O

r

l 1

COMMUNCIATIONS 1.

Has the plant communication system ever caused you or someone you have seen to misoperate any plant system?

If so, please describe.

This-question refers to the telephones, sound powered phones, walkie-talkies, and PA system in the plant.

2.

Is there any feature of the communication system that helps you operate a particular system or the plant in general?

Please describe.

3.

-Has the use of the communication system ever caused control room instrumentation to operate improperly (e.g.,

nuclear instrumentation picking up walkie-talkie signals)?

If so, please_ describe.

4.

Is there any general problem with the plant communication system that degrades its usefulness during plant operation (f or example, absence of a protocol requiring walkie-talkie users to identify themselves)

.If so, please describe.

e 1

0 e

e o-

- - - ~.

PLANT COMPUTER SYSTEM 4

1.

-Has anyffeature of the VEGP plant' computer system ever

.causedryou or someone you have seen to misoperate any plant system?- If so, please describe.

2.

Has the plant'comppter system ever misled you as to what is happening in<the plant?

Please describe.

This question refers to computer output that mi sleading because of inaccuracies, incorrect status indications, ti'me delays,

.etc.

3.

Is there any feature (s) of the plant computer system that you have.found particularly useful during plant operation?.Please describe.

4.

In general,.have you used:the plant computer system more for normal, abnormal, or' emergency operation?

5.

Do you believe that you understand how the plant computer system works well enough to use the system to its potential?1 Please explain.

6.

Although it is not absolutely required, do you think*the plant 1 computer system is necessary*for normal operation?

\\

- How about emergency operation?

1-6 i

e e

's e

e J

t L

MAINTENANCE 1.

Has maintenance performed in the control room ever caused you or someone you have seen to misoperate or be unable to operate any plant system?

If so, please describe.

This question refers to such activities as surveillance testing, indicator light replacement, chart paper replacement, etc.

2.

Has miscommunication between you or other operations people and maintenance ever caused the misoperation or unavailability of a plant system?

If so, please describe.

3.

Is there some feature of the VEGP maintenance program that you have found helpful in operating the plant (e.g.,

direct accountability for clearing work orders)?

If so, please describe.

4.

Do you use jcb. aids to perform the required maintenance in the contrdi room?

For example, is a special tool provided for indicator light replacement?

b O

a J

~

'~

r-PROCEDURES 1.

Has using a procedure ever caused you or someone you have seen to misoperate any plant system?

If so, please describe.

2.

Are there particul,ar procedures that you tend to use more than others?

Please list them.

3.

Are the emergency procedures usable as they are now written?

Please explain.

4.

Has a procedure, normal or emergency, ever left you in doubt as to what your next action should be?

If so, which procedure (s).?

5.

Are there procedures that are particularly easy to use during normal or emergency operation?

Which ones and why?

9 g

s e h

STAFFING 1.

Has the number of people on duty in the control room ever caused you or someone you have seen to misoperate or be unable to operate any plant system?

Please describe.

2.

Has the division of responsibility in the control room ever left you in doubt as to what you shpuid do next or who was in charge?

If so, please explain.

3.

Is there some feature of the control room staffing policy that helps or allows you to operate the plant more effectively than you might otherwise?

If so, what?

4.

In your experience, has the STA provided worthwhile input to the operations staff during transients?

~

5.

Have you or someone you have seen ever been misled by anything the STA said?

Please explain.

O e

D

/

G 6

O i

e

__m._

3 TRAINING 1.

Has the training you received ever led you or someone you have seen to misoperate or be unable to operate any plant system?

If so, please describe.

2.

Has the training you received been applicable to the operating situations you have encountered?

If not, please describe the deficiencies.

?

3.

Is there some feature of the GPC training program that has been especially helpful to you during plant operation?

Please describe.

4.

Has your training placed too much or too little emphasis on emergency operation?

Please suggest a balance between normal and emergency emphasis during training (e.g., 60740).

5.

Have there been instances when the transients you see during requalification actually occur at the plant?

Please cite an example.

6.

Do you feel that more practice handling transients would be beneficial for operating during such transients?

Can you give an example where such practice was or would have been helpful?

9 t o D

0

... _ _ _ _ _. - -----__2 COMMENTS CONTROL / INDICATOR #:

PROBLEM:

RECOMMENDATION:

t l

t e

8 4

0 b

e

{

e e

0 e

ATTACHMENT 2 CONTROL ROOM DESIGN PROBLEM REPORT e

4_

g 6

t e

N e

9 4

O O

+

e 6 e

^

k Interoffice Correspondence-Georgia Power h DATE:

- June 19, 1984-RE:~

Plant-Vogtle - Units 1 & 2 Control Room Design Problem-Report File: X5AB03 System: 4603

~

Log: GSU-1012 Security Code: NC Keyword: Control Room FROM:

E. J. Kozinsky' RO/SRO Trainees TO:

t To improve the reliability of operations at Vogtle, I will be conducting a Control Room Design Review to identify and correct problems in the Control Room.

Your experience in the simulator is a valuable source of information on design problems. When you note a problem in the simulator, please fill out a Control Room Design Problem Report.

The purpose of a Control Room Design Report is to identify

problems in the Simulator Control Room of an operational nature.

I am trying to get operator input on switch and annunciator layout and labels in order to provide useful information to you, the operators.

If you have any problems or suggestions, please fill out a report and sent it to me.~ I will do rr.y best to correct any problems we can practically

=

g fix. -

'Look for problems in your simulator training classes and report while they are fresh on your mind.

I'th especially interested in problems as

'ou learn the board, before you learn to compensate for the design problems.

yThat learning period is the truest indicator of design problems.

EJK:pc

' xc: W.. F. Kitchens 4

S

e i

CONTROL ROOM DESIGN PROBLEM REPORT FROM:

DATE:

T0:

E. J. Kozinsky CONTROL / INDICATOR (# AND NAME):

PROBLEM:

f[

RECOMMENDATION:

O O

9 e

t 0

5 4

i I

I l

(

ATTACHMENT 3 1

TASK ANALYSIS DATA FORMS s

e e

4 4

0 t

O I

a l

i s

TASK SEQUENCE CHART (TSC)

- PLANT, UNIT #

SEQUENCE NO.

SEQUENCE TITLE REV R l

-TASKS IN MAIN SEQUENCE SEQ./ TASKS POTENTIALLY BRANCHED T0*

SEQUENCE TASK COMMENTS gER TASK TITLE NUMBER No.

TITLE P

L 1

l l

l l

l e

9 9

9

S+ D

• A-----

-- - ~ ~ ~ ~

' '~

7-s y

+.

sN 4

4 N

.e w

h 7@

h N '{

e

, \\..

. * = *

..t-* M.*,

7 ~* *,

y e

8y-

"(. * %

A w.+

g.

3 l

+ '.N.

eI t

3r g

11 4 6e t

i

+

N es 5

f*

t.

r 1

r 6

>t l8 C

~

1 I

e 8

.l s

/

I e

F-s-3 3,

J 6g.

J.h h

N

. h\\

O e.

h n/

• . + +

.c na L

o t.

.1

'}E<

,f 7

e

.c !

. \\ %, ' I ;,,

' N~y

.nm.

\\

Ct.e I

.sr<

s 2

• ^ '

l

9, e

^

\\

2

(

i,,

Q-

\\

s w

O-s' 04.!

4 4

V e

L 3

-s 4 3-3' e r SQ.

I t

=

M

., c g

g g

n<

t p

w g

m t.

f w

>e 4 =

s g

'r r

U s

t s

i

.l 4

4 s

4,

\\

s 1

+

l's a

..e-(

k.

g

,t l'm h

')

l*

j I'; l*

6 l

,.=a=*,

- e e

' f' {

h~ 1 i

i -

- y

, i.

g F$ $

(

=

f f

' f.

h i

e W.

)

E*e-

'"T.

5

\\'

.me- -

's s

o

- ' ' OW * ^* -~M*****'---

u m.

. - -. - ~.,

2 TASK ANALYSIS HED PRINCIPLES 1.

Are all of the controls, displays and inoicators that

-are required to perform this task present in the control room?

2.

Are the controls, displays and indicators grouped in accordance with t,he information and control require-ments of this task?

t

~

3.

Are the controls, displays and indicators 1abeled according to the' requirements of this task?

4.

'Can the displays and annunciators used in this task

~

be: read accurately from viewing position of the operator?

CanLdisplays be. read while operating associated controls?

5.

Do the displays give the operator direct, readily c-usable informations o

Parameter values with required precision?

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

o Trend information when needed?

i

-o Rate of change information when needed7 o

Percentage information used only when appropriate?

o Digital or analog information used when needed7 o

Status or demand information as appropriate for the task?*

6.

If instrumentation orcentrol cepabilities are unavailable under certain plant conditions, are e

there alternate means provided for the operator to meet task needs.

(

i L

T l

l

• To be noted only for cases known to the operator; task I

I analysis,is not expected to determine power source of all indications.

l f

a

%.p.

p --

~gg -

-p,

--+- -

3 i w.n.

42_ _ -

,o v.,,', ;y'f, h n... "_ ) ~9 -

_l,:*

x a s r

- ',,. y }

bg g., 4 '

g..

t

^

u

..*-.s a>

.c n !

-s

.e 3

4 6

\\,.

s i

e7.

Are felated controls and displays within. functional groups,. arranged-in the same relatpve positions?

'For example:

4 n ' ',

0

. p

.s fr' M s.

.g-

.__y___.,

'A display 9 display C display z,

. /--'

i

- f,. c -

l

.L t

/*, y,f.J.'

r n

-?

.A control

.,B control. '

C control

,b g-

,,x+..

3,.

(.

t 1

~

t i

t

- 8. -

Is.the display' obscured while operating its associated

-.y J/.

control?

. y control positions or displays 9.

Are'there any. controls,

[a.

which the cperator knows do'not serve any. function?

f t

., q,,t.-

NOTE r...

Is.-.-

N.?;.n p4 '

I theTaskAnkiysisTeamdiscovers r-a HED which in their. judgement would require operational' knowledge to discover or would be a decrement 1

f, to Task performance, they shoulds 9

feel free to report it even though jp g -

. p "'

.it'is nominally al1ocated to..the R$

' Survey ochOperating-Experience 9-f %c

,. s v,,Revi ew.

~

g,yM

.4 r

.a

,3

' m.f, l-

-y g.,

1

,e g.,;

t y

,/. '_

y k

[~ -

4 4 t

m./

,I '.

w)..

Y'

, f,i. " -

d3-

.t r

/g' a

g,

' t,., K

- ),

, /. -

% g-i.

7

^

}

W r.

7,m y s-9 u-a -

1

P' y

e e-6,4 w -

go

' Eh wae,M M,,

me -

4.egeme=-@ W W W

.et.

wwhsaw ATTACHMENT 4 REVIEW TEAM RESUMES o

b

=m e**

O w

I e -

p 8

9 F

4 4

• 4 9

k' r

RESUME NAME:

Edward J. (Ed) Kozinsky DATE OF BIRTH:

August 28, 1946 DATE EMPLOYED:

January 23, 1984 TITLE:

Operations Supervisor EDUCATION:

Bachelor of Science (Chemistry)

Baylor University, 1968 LICENSE / CERTIFICATIONS:

sSenior Reactor Operator Certification.

August 1984, Vogtle Project.

Engineer Officer, Naval Reactors ERDA, 1975 WORK EXPERIENCE:

SUMMARY

4 years Navy Nuclear Power School Instructor 4 years Navy Nuclear Power Plant Operations 6 years Nuclear Power Plant Operations Research 1 month participation at a PWR (Sequoyah) 2/84 NUCLEAR (GPC)

Position:

Operations Supervisor Dates:

January 23, 1984 - Present Location:

Plant Vogtle, Burke Co., GA Plant Status:

Under construction & startup Job

Description:

Responsible for safe and efficient operation of the plant during initial test program ~and commercial operation. Direct review of control room design and normal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures.

NUCLEAR OTRSR Position:

Senicr/ Principle Engineer Dates:

February 28, 1978 - January 22, 1984 Location:

General Physics Corporation Chattanooga, TN Job

Description:

Conducted research programs dealing with nuclear power plant control room design, operator performance and reliability, and computer based operator aids. Work with Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) produced a Performance Measurement System for Nuclear Power Plant Simulators.

Department of Energy work defined a Disturbance Analysis and Surveillance System (DASS) for nuclear power plant use.

O a

Resume Edward J. (Ed) Kozinsky Page 2 NUCLEAR OTfiER (CONT'D)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission sponson d research included the hfaty Relatef Operator Action (SROA).prt, gram at Oak Ridge Mattonal Laboratories and simulator studies on operatcr erar rates at Sandia National Laboratories.

Position:

Divisipn Officer, U. S. Navy Dates:

February 1974 - February 1978 Location:

Atlantic SSBN645/SSN638 Job

Description:

Responsible for the safe operation and maintenance of naval nuclear power plant systems. Qualified as Engineerin Officer of the Watch.

Position:

Instructor, U. S. Navy Dates:

May, 1969 - August, 1973

-Location:

Naval Nuclear Power School Bainbridge, MD Job

Description:

Develop lesson materials and exams and present a 12 week course of instruction on power plant chemistry, radiological fundamentals, and reactor materials to officer and enlisted students.

TRAINING NUCLEAR Course

Title:

U. S. Navy Nuclear Power Program Dates:

August 1973 - February 1974 Total Course Hrs.:

1280 Vendor:

Nuclear Training Unit, Windsor Locks, CT

==

Description:==

A program of classroom and on the job training on the SIC pressurized water reactor.

Qualified as Engineering Officer of the Watch.

Course

Title:

Engineer Officer School Dates:

Novemcer 1975 Tota 1 Course Hrs.:

160 Vendor U. S. Navy, Charlestm, S.C.

==

Description:==

A progrant of classrocar and..self study-to_pown for.the.

Engineer-Offfcar examinattorr (on the SSW naval nuclear powet-plant)

I

a p

Resume Edward J.-(Ed) Kozinsky

-Page 3 TRAINING NUCLEAR (CONT'D) administered by the Naval Reactors branch of the Energy Research and Development Agency (ERDA).

Course

Title:

Hot License Training Dates:

March - April 1978 Total Course Hrs.:

240 Vendor:

General Physics Corporation

==

Description:==

A program of classroom (120 hr.)

and simulator (120 hr.) training for hot license certification on the Sequoyah (Westinghouse-PWR) plant.

Course

Title:

SRO Certification Program Plant Vogtle.

Dates:

January - July 1984 Total Course Hrs.:

1,120 Vendor:

GPC; General Physics

~

==

Description:==

Prepare SRO Canidates for certificatio Basic PWR Theory, Design, and Operation with 8 weeks of Simulator Training.

i TRAINING University of Tennessee, Chattanooga OTHER 1.

Fluid Flow 2.

Analysis Methods (Advanced Differential Equations) 3.

Statistics i

AFFILIATIONS Human Factors Society American Nuclear Society PUBLICATIONS Praskievicz and Kozinsky, " Performance Measurement System for Training Simulators," Proceedinas-Training of Nuclear Facility Personnel, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Conf.-

790404 (Gatlinburg, TN), April 1980.

Kozinsky and Crowe, " Utilization of Performance Measurement System Data for Leak Detection Model Validation,", GP-R-658 (For Babcock & Wilcox-1632, Sandia National Laboratories Project 42-6770), July 1980.

Kozinsky and Praskievicz, " Utility Industry Simulator Verification Practices," GP-R-23002, Oak Ridge National Laboratory f40X-40432C, January 1981.

Barks & Kozinsky, " Human Factors Review of the Alvin W.

Vogtle Control Room," GP-R-23003, for Georgia Power Company, February 1981.

T. Bott, E. Kozinsky, D. Crowe, P. Haas, Criteria for Safety Related Nuclear Power Plant Operator Actions:

Initial Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Simulator Exercises 010iL/NUREG/TM-434, NUREG/CR-1908, Oak Ridge r

National Laboratory, September 1981.

Kozinsky, " Human Factors Research cn Power Plant Simulators," P*nMapinc? of the Human Factors Society 25th Annual Meeting (Rochester, N.Y.), Human Factors Society, October 1901 Kozinsky, " Human Factors Research Using the EPRI Performance Measurement System," CSNI Specialist Meeting on Operator Training and Qualifications (Charlotte, N.C.),

Connaittee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations OECD Nuclear Energy Agency-Paris France /USNRC/INPO, October 1981.

e

.r

--,n,---

,--m,.n-e,---wna,--- -,. -.

--,--n,,

e--,

b Kozinsky, Guttmann, " Simulator Data on Human Error Probabilities," International ANS/ ENS Topical Meeting in Probabilities Risk Assessment (Por t Chester, N.Y. ),

American and European Nuclear Societies, October 1981.

Haas, Kozinsky, " Time Responso Data on Safety-Related Operator Actions and Implications for Manual Allocation of

. j Safety Functions," Ninth Water Reactor Safety Research Information Meetino (Gaithersburg, MD), U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 1981.

Belsterling, Kozinsky, et.al., Soecification and Verification of Nuclear Power Plant Training Simulator Response Characteristics, *Part I: Su:nmary of Current Practice for Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Simulators, ORNL/TM-7985, NUREG/CR-2353 Vol. I, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, November 1981 Kozinsky, E.J., " Computerized Measurement of Operator Performance on Simulators," Proceedings:

1981 Winter Simulation Conference, Society for Computer Simulation, December 1981.

Kozinsky, Crowe, Morris, Haas, C'riteria for Safety-Related Nuclear Power Plant Operator Actions:

Initial Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Simulator Exercises, NUREG/CR-2534, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, April 1982.

Barks, Eckel, Kozinsky, Task Analysis for Safety Related Operator Action, PWR Pilot Study, NUREG/CR-2598, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, March 1982.

Topmiller, Eckel, Kozinsky, Human Reliability Data Bank for

~

Nuclear Power Plant Operations: Volume 1: A Review of Existing Human Reliability Data Banks, NUREG/CR-2744, SAND 82-7057, Sandia National Laboratories, September 1982.

~~

Comer, Kozinsky, Eckel, Human Reliability Data Bank for Nuclear Power Plant Operations: Volume 2: A Data Bank Concept and System Description, NUREG/CR-2744, Sandia p

National Laboratories, September 1982.

/

I Topmiller, Eckel, Kozinsky, " Review and Evaluation of Human Error Reliability Data Banks," Proceedings of the l

International Thermal Reactor Safety Conference, American

- Nuclear Society, Chicago, Illinois, September 1982.

Kozinsky,. "The Impact of Procedures on Operator Performance," Proceedings of the International Meeting on Thermal Reactor Safety, American Nuclear Society, September, 1982.

I f.

er c-e m--m---w--

cw eg*'--***-*-vw-e-*-y---~==

-v-e-w e -

-c-t-wyevr-----+-~~------'---trv w~-e w~*-

-wt------

===--i=-*w w+

<- - ' - - - - -+

C~

a.....--.-.-..-

L Kozinsky, " Plant Design Criteria for Safety Related Operator Actions," Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernetics and Society, IEEE, October, 1982.

Beare, Dorris, Kozinsky, " Response Times of Nuclear Power Plant Operations: Comparison of Field and Simulator Data,"

Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 26th Annual Meeting, Human Factors Society, October,1982.

Mahaffey, Kozinsky, et.al., Functional Classification of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Using an Integrated Aoproach to Economical, Reliable, Safe Nuclear Power Production, Georgia Institute of Technology and 0 teral Physics Corporation, September,1982.

Beare, Dorris, Kozinsky, et.al., " Criteria for Safety-Related Nuclear Power Plant Operator Actions:

Initial Simulator to Field Data Calibration," NUREG/CR-3092, ORNL/TM-8599, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, February 1983.

Barks, Gomer, Kozinsky, Moody, " Nuclear Power Plant Control

• Room Task Analysis: Pilot Study for Boiling Water Reactors," NUREG/CR-3415, ORNL/SUB/79-40432/1 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Sept 1983.

D. S. Crowe, A. N. Beare, E. J. Kozinsky, and P. M. Haas,

" Criteria for-Safety-Related Nuclear Power Plant Operator Actions:

1982 Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Simulator Exercises,"

NUREG/CR-3123 (ORNL/NUREG/TM-8626),

April 1983.

A. N. Beare, R. E. Dorris, C. R. Bovell, D. S. Crowe, and E. J. Kozinsky, "A Simulator-Based Study of Human Errors in Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Tasks," NUREG/CR-3309, SAND 83-7095, Sandia National Laboratories, 1983.

Kozinsky, Gray, Beare, Barks, and Gcxner, " Safety-Related Operator Actions: Methodology for Developing Criteria," NUREU/CR 3515, ORNL/Di-8942, March,1984.

B pO -

~_

RESUME NAME:

John D. Hopkins DATE OF BIRTH:

April.29, 1957 DATE EMPLOYED:

July 5,1977 TITLE:

Shift Supervisor EDUCATION:

1 1/3 years Augusta Collge LICENSE / CERTIFICATIONS

" Senior Reactor Operator Certification, 8/84, Vogtle Project Reactor Operator License received 4/82 for Hatch 1 & 2 WORK _E.XPERIENCE:

SUMMARY

6 3/4 years power plant experience (Commercial Power Plant)

(421 months with weighting factors)

NUCLEAR (GPC)

Position:

Shift Supervisor ~

Dates:

August 1984 - Present Location:

Plant Vogtle, Burke Co., Ga.

Plant Status:

Under construction & startup Job

Description:

Direct operators on shift during CAT, and startup.

Assigned to C/R Design Modifications / Human Factor Group.

Position:

Shift Foreman-In-Training Dates:

March 17, 1984 - August 1984-Location:

Plant Vogtle, Burke Co, Ga.

Plant Status:

Under construction and startup Job

Description:

Attending SR0 certification school and assigned to C/R Design Modifications / Human Factors group.

Position:

Plant Operator

~

Dates:

January 1984 - March 17, 1984 Location:

Plant Vogtle, Burke Co., Ga.

Plant Status:

Under construction & startup Job

Description:

Attend SRC Certification School Position:

Assistant Plant Operator Reactor Operator License Dates:

4/82 to 12/83 Plant Status:

Commercial Operation Job

Description:

Duties consist of Control Room Operation of Unit 2 BWR under normal and transit conditions, normal startup, shutdown and refueling operations, the

. refueling flow and in Control Room.

4

.s, s

LResume J. D. Hopkins LPage 2

~

NUCLEAR (GPC)

CONT'D Position:

Assistant Plant Operator Dates:

10/79 to 4/82 Location:

Plant Hatch Plant Status:

Canmercial Operation

-Job

Description:

Duties consist of operation of radwaste facilities including liquid.and solid waste proces~ sing. During this i

time I attended the Hatch R0 license school for R0

. license preparation.

Position:

Plant Equipment Operator Dates:

7/77 to 10/79 Location:

Plant Hatch Plant Status:

Commercial Operation Job

Description:

Daily check of remote equipment and remote equipment operation.

TRAINING NUCLEAR Course

Title:

Substation Operation Dates:

January 1980 Total Course Hrs.:

40

-Vendor:

GPC

==

Description:==

Design and operation of 230/500 kv switchyard Course

Title:

Turbine Generator Operation

-Dates:

November 1982 Total Course Hrs.:

40 Vendor:

Spectrum Technical Training

==

Description:==

Design, operation and construction of Turbine Generator and auxillary

n J

systems' required for T-G

-startup, shutdown and operation.

d'

' Course

Title:

Basic Nuclear Preparation Dates:

Total Course Hrs.:

320 hrs.

Vendor:

GPC

==

Description:==

'This course is designed

'~

to prepare. personnel in basics needed to enter-the license program.

Studies consisted of instruction in mathematics, u

classical physics, chemistry, electricity and heat transfer.

~

~

' Resume J. D. Hopkins Page 3-TRAINING NUCLEAR (CONT'D)

Course

Title:

Physics Dates:

Total Course Hrs.:

320 hrs.

-Vendor:

GPC

==

Description:==

Study is structured to provi'de instruction in Nuclear Theory and Operation.

Subjects included Nuclear Physics, Radiation Detection and Shielding, Core Physics, Reactor Operations and Operating Characteristics.

Course

Title:

Basic Technology Dates:

Total Course Hr's.:

240 hrs.

Vendor:

GPC

==

Description:==

This course provides a technical understanding of the design and operating characteristics of a BWR.

Material studied includes Thermodynamics, Fluid Mechanics, Heat Transfer, Health Physics, and Nuclear Instrumentation.

Course

Title:

Reactor Technology Dates:

Total Course Hrs.:

400 hrs.

Vendor:

GPC

==

Description:==

This provides a technical knowledge of the Plant E.I. Hatch systems including all safety systems and operational settings.

Course

Title:

B0P Systems Dates:

Total Course Hrs.:

480 hrs.

Vendor:

GPC

==

Description:==

This study reviews the Plant Technical Specifications and introduces plant familiarization in the field.

u:

c

_j

a, Resume-J. D. Hopkins Page.4~

i

\\

TRAINING NUCLEAR (CONT'D)

Course

Title:

Simulator or on-the-job Dates:

Total Course Hrs.: 320 hrs.

Vehdor:

GPC

==

Description:==

This is a 20 week phase of training which includes 8 wks.

3 study and observation in the plant and a 12 week observation of Control room opera ~tions.

This phase of training includes all normal duties of control room work, field work, maintenance preparation and assistance with various tests. Control manipulations are performed on both the simulator.and in the control room.

Course

Title:

Walkthru & Evaluation Dates:-

Total Course Hrs.: 320 hrs.

Vendor:

GPC-

==

Description:==

This study involves Training Department walkthru's followed by vendor evaluations.

Course

Title:

Reactor Startup Qualification Dates:

Total Course Hrs.: 40 hrs.

0.ador:

General Electric Corp.

==

Description:==

(G.E. hot license certification)

Course

Title:

SRO Certification Program Plant Vogtle Dates:

1/84 to 7/84 1120 hrs.

Total Hrs.:

Vendor:

GPC; General Physics

==

Description:==

Prepare SRO candidates for n

certification. Basic PWR

~

Theory, Design, and Operations with 8 weeks of Simulator Training.

.--,v,

,--3 y

'4_

_ ~ _.

'f_.

t RESUME OF

t;.

RILEY R.

JOHNSON

' EXPERIENCE:

' July 1984'to Consultec Services, Inc.

Present-Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Waynesboro, GA Operations Support Supervisor Duties:

Provide assistance to VEGP Nuclear Operations in areas of procedure, review,

. training, plant testing / operations and human facters evaluations.

Temporarily assigned to-V.C. Summer Operatiens Training

~

Staff-in support of the VEGP SRO Licensing-Program.

Jan 1984.to Operations Supervisor for Deseret Generation

' July 1984

.and Transmission.at a 400 MW coal fired plant.

Duties include ~ supervising the

- testing, startup and operation of various plant equipment =and supervising a shift of

• k,

6. operators.

~

.Jan 1982 to Ebasco Services, Inc.

'Jan'1984 Waterford-III Nuclear Station Taft, LA A ll65.MW Combustion. Engineering PWR

. Position:

Principal Engineer Duties:

Serving as the operations oriented member of a multidiscipline review. team (System Operability Assurance Review Team) whose function.is to perform detailed

-reviews of plant systems to identify design discrepancies and operational concerns and.

to complete detailed analysis of system

~

. reaction to single. component or control

' failures.

Later: participated in the t

Waterford III control room design review and the resolution of the human engineering discrepancies (per NUREG 0700).

Also developed plant systems training lectures for the technician-training program.

i 4

5 e

i S

~

s

-q..

• 4 May1980 to NUS Corporation

- Jan 1982 Virgil C.

Summer Nuclear Station Jenkinsville, SC Position:

Staff Engineer Duties:

Responsible for writing and reviewing plant surveillance test procedures.

Later assigned to the Activit_ies Coordination Team whose function was to act as liaison with the various construction, startup,

~

operating and maintenance factions to minimize interference and the duplication of effort during pre-operational testing.

In addition to the Activities Coordination team, I served as Task Leader for the operations assistance group whose function is to advise the Shift Supervisor on the correct and proper operation of plant equipment during startup and operations and to conduct on shift training for the operations group.

~

April 1979 Westinghouse Electric Corporation to May 1980 Krsko Project, Krsko, Yugoslavia.

Position:

Primary Plant Startup Supervisor Duties:

Responsible for reviewing, rewriting, and recommending for approval startup tests and plant operating.

_ procedures, also responsible for supervising a test team in performing various startup tests on 600 MW Westinghouse design pwr and evaluating the results of those tests.

' July'1978 to Colorado UTE Electric Association Ap r,i'l 1979 Craig, Colorado

~

Position:

Control Room Operator Duties:

Responsibre for performing various startup tests, operating major pieces of T

equipment, and directing the operation of auxiliary equipment of a 450 MW coal fired power plant.

July:1973 to Arkansas Power and Light Company July 1978 Arkansas Nuclear One Unit "ine A 1025 MW B&W design pwr and as plant operator on Unit 2, a-980 MWCE design pwr.

Position:

All positions fron auxiliary power to plant operator.

--__----_-m_

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

w

-_.1

v

. n-i l " A. w. 4s

~ _. -

' 4 Duties:. Responsible for all phases of

equipment operation and startup testing including obtaining senior reactor operator certification-(1978), a reactor operator license ~(1976), and a high pressure boiler operator license (1973).

4Mayjl965 to United States Navy

' April.1973.

Position:

Machinist Mate Duties:

Responsible for operation and maintenance of naval nuclear power plants.

and for training new navy operators in' safe and correct operation and maintenance procedures.

h i

Y' S

e;.

.'e

+

7 4

=

s N

a m s

l-,__.---

~.-

. - - - - - - - ~. -

RESUME

'NAME:

Alan Lee James

TfTLE:

Associate Engineer Electrical Engineering (Bachelors)

DEGREE:

'DATE OF' BIRTH:

11/10/59 DATE EMPLOYED:

7/6/81 WORK EXPERIENCE:

NUCLEAR (GPC)

Position:

Plant Engineer Dates:

7/6/84 to Present

' Location:

Plant Vogtle Plant Status:

Under Construction Job Destription:

PERMS, Control Room Workspace Modification Class 1E 125 VDC Lead Test Supervision Position:

Associate Engineer Dates:

1/6/83 to.7/6/84 Location:

Plant Vogtle Plant Status:

Under Construction Job

Description:

Telephone System, Plant Manual Review Coord., PERMS, Control Room Workspace Modification Position:

Junior Engineer Dates:

7/6/81 to 1/6/83 Location:

Plant Vogtle Plant Status:

Under Construction Job

Description:

PAM's, PERM's, Equipment Qualification Position:

PE0 7/9/81 to 7/26/81 Dates:

Location:

Plant Hatch Plant Status:

.0perational Job

Description:

PE0 Work NONE

' NUCLEAR-(OTHER)

NONE NON-NUCLEAR (GPC)

NONE' NON-NUCLEAR (OTHER)

TRAINING:

NUCLEAR Course

Title:

STA Course 2/1/82 to 6/18/82 Dates:

Total Course Hrs: 640 Vendors:

General Physics depth study on Plan,t Vogtle and its

'a

==

Description:==

associated systems.

O J

w

+-

- ~.

Resum2 A. L. James

'Page 2-

-TRAINING (NUCLEAR) Cont'd:

Ceurse

Title:

Simulator Training Dates:

6/21/82 to 7/30/82 Total Course Hrs: 120 Vendor:

General Physics

==

Description:==

Four hours per day classroom instruction followed by four hours of instruction using the Plant Vogtle Simulator.

Course

Title:

PWR Course Dates:

8/17/81 to 8/21/81 Total Course Hrs: 40 Vendor:

Georgia Power

==

Description:==

Study of a general PWR.

Course

Title:

Respirator Training Dates:

7/12/81 Total Course Hrs: 8 Vendor:

GPC, Plant Hatch e

==

Description:==

Use of different types of respirators.

Course

Title:

~

Health Physics and

^

Security Training Dates:

7/10/81 j

Total Course Hrs: 8

-Vendor:

GPC, Plant Hatch i

==

Description:==

General Health Physics Training and Emergency Procedures a

j Course

Title:

PERMS Training Dates:-

6/18/84 to 6/29/84

-j t

7/6/84 to 7/13/84 Total Course Hrs: 120 Vendor:

Westinghouse

==

Description:==

Study of the Radiation Monitoring System.

u Course

Title:

Startup Class Dates:

4/9/84 to 4/19/84

-^

Total Course Hrs: 36 Vendor:

GPC

==

Description:==

Studied different CAT's and Startup O

Procedures.

0 NON-NUCLEAR-Course

Title:

Decision Making Dates:

2/1/82 to 2/3/82 i

Total Course Hrs: 24 E

Process Management Skills Vendor:

W

==

Description:==

Study of different types of the 4

decision making process.

M

. w h

6

... d_ _

i l iesume-R

A;HL.oJames-1 Pag 1 3 1

., TRAINING (NON-NUCLEAR) Cont'd:

' Course

Title:

Principles of Leadership

- Dates:

9/12/83 to 9/16/83 Total Course Hrs: 40 LVendor:

GPC

==

Description:==

How to'be an effective supervisor.

Course

Title:

Dimension PBX

'Comm Star Training D.ste:

9/22/83

' Total Course Hrs: 8 Vendor:-

Southern Bell

==

Description:==

Working of the telephone system at Plant Vogtle.

0THER:

(Applicable.to Power NONE Plant or Related

-Industry)

G O

4 e

e 9

4 9

e 8*

s O

t...

a RESUME NAME:

Gregory L. Hooper TITLE:

Associate Engineer DEGREE:

Bachelors in Electrical Engineering DATE OF BIRTH:

September 9, 1958 DATE EMPLOYED:

March 1.

1982 WORK EXPERIENCE:

NUCLEAR (GPC)

Position:

Junior Engineer Dates:

3/1/82 to 3/1/83 Location:

Plant Vogtle Plant Status:

Under Construction Job

Description:

PAMSCRG 1.97) instrumentation, PERMS radiation monitoring computer, MET Tower, PROTEUS plant computer, Main Control Board, Human Factors Engineering,I cc C Position:

Associate Engineer Dates:

3/1/83 to 7/19/83 Location:

Plant Vogtle Plant Status:

Under Construction Job

Description:

PROTEUS plant computer, Main Control Board, Human Factors Engineering Position:

Associate Engineer Dates:

11/21/83 to 3/21/84 Location:

Westinghouse Plant Status:

N/A

~

Job

Description:

Wrote software for the PROTEUS plant computer Position:

Associate Engineer Dates:

7/23/84 to Present l

Location:

Plant Vogtle h

Plant Status:

Under Construction Job

Description:

Test Supervisor for the PROTEUS plant computer and the Main Control Board NON-NUCLEAR (GPC)

Position:

Co-op Dates:

12/76 to 3/80 Location:

Macon Division l

Plant Status:

N/A Job

Description:

Energy Services Dept.

1 l

t J

NON-NUCLEAR (OTIER) Position:

Assistant Engineer Dates:

6/29/81 to 2/19/83 Location:

Fluor Eng. & Constr.

Plant Status:

N/A Job

Description:

Instrumentation, Drafting, Heat Tracing TRAINING:

NLCLEAR

, Course

Title:

PWR Dates:

7/19/82 to 7/23/82 Total Course Hrs:

40 Vendor:

GPC Training Dept.

==

Description:==

Brief overview of nuclear physics and PWR plant systems.

Course

Title:

Engineering Technology Dates:

4/2/84 to 6/22/84 Total Course Hrs:

480 Vendor:

GPC Training Dept.

==

Description:==

Nuclear Physics, Plant systems operations, thermodynamics, electrical concepts, integrated plant operations.

Course

Title:

Simulator Training Dates:

6/25/84 to 7/6/84 Total Course Hrs:

80 Vendor:

GPC Training Dept.

==

Description:==

Simulated plant heat-up, load changes, start-up and accidents Course

Title:

Start-up Training Dates:

7/9/84 to 7/20/84 Total Course Hrs:

80 Vendor:

GPC Training Dept.

==

Description:==

Reviewed Start-up procedures, CAT procedures, and Test Supervisor responsibilities.

NCN-NUCLEAR Course

Title:

PROTEUS computer t' raining Dates:

7/25/83 to 11/18/83 Total Course Hrs:

680 Vendor:

Westinghouse

==

Description:==

Detailed hardware and software training 5

0 e

2

(

RESUME

.NAME:s

.' Paul M. Kochery-

[J Plant Engineering Supervisor t

DEGREE:,

.. BS -(Electrical Engineering)

BS'(Physics'& Mathematics)

DATE OF BIRTH:

March 18, 1945 DATE EMPLOYED:

February 22, 1977 4?ORK EXPERIENCEi

' NUCLEAR (GPC)

Position:

Plant Engineering Supervisor Dates:

2-23-83 thru present Location:

Plant Vogtle - Power Generation Plant Status:

Under Construction Job

Description:

Coordinate electrical DWG reviews design reviews, control room design reviews, Equipment Qualification Program, Plant Telecomunication system, MET Tower, EOF Comunucation Instrumenfation and Control System Reviews, Scaling, Proteus Computer, Secondary Plant Performance and implementation of Reg. 1-57 and Reg. 0700.

Position:

Sr. Plant Engineer Dates:

3/20/82.- 2-22-83 Location:

Plant Vogtle - Power Generation Plant. Status:

Under Construction Job

Description:

Group Leader - coordinate electrical DWG reviews, design reviews, control room design reviews, Equipment Quali-fication Program, Plant Tele:omuni-cation system and implementation of Reg.1-67 and Reg. 0700.

Position:

Construction Engineer Dates:

11/5/79 - 9/3/79 Location:

Plant Hatch - Temp. Assignment Plant Status:

Operating Job

Description:

Supervisor - Problem Solving.

Night Shift:

Pipe support modification to concur with NRC bulletin 79-04 and 79-014.

Position:

Construction Engineer - Instrumental and Control Dates:

11/4/79 - 11/5/79; 9/3/79 - 9/29/79 Location:

Plant Vogtle - Construction Plant Status:

Construction Job

Description:

Review specification, generate construction -(instrumentation) dept.

procedure, review instrumentation drawing, resolve any installation problems..

n.

,i)

Resume Paul M.' Xochery

, Page 2 Position:

Construction Engineer - Instrumentation t

and Control Dates:

2/22/77 - 11/4/78 Location:

Plant Hatch

' Plant Status:

Construction, start-up and operation

_ Job

Description:

Complete responsibility of installing s

all instrumentation and tubing at Plant Hatch, Unit 2.

Also helped Mechanical Section in Hanger Surveil-lance and provided engineering sup-port for insulation installation.

NUCLEAR (OTHER)

None NON-NUCLEAR (GPC)

Position:

Field Engineer - Piping, Instrumenta-tion and Control Dates:

9/29/79 - 3/20/82

_ Location:

Plant Scherer Plant Status:

Construction, start-up and operation Job

Description:

Resolve piping and pipe support problem, material take off and requisitioning. Coordinate activities of all the contractors in installing piping and instrumentation and piping support. Evaluate the bids and specification, re-design control air system, coordinate start-up'and outage work. Planning and scheduling of inst. installation and cost evaluation of instrumentation installation contract.

NON-NUCLEAR (OTHER) Position:

Instrumentation Engineer Dates:

2/5/75 - 2/22/77 Location:

Plant Wansley - Davis Electrical Constructors Plant Status:

Construction, start-up and operation Job

Description:

Coordinate the activities for Plant Wansley, Unit #2 instrumentation in-sta11ation.

Solve all installation problems.

Position:

Project Electrical Engineer Dates:

1/5/75 - 2/5/76 Location:

Lone Star Cement, Roanoke, Va.

Davis Electrical Plant Status:

Construction - start-up Job

Description:

Povide supervision and coordination for the installation of the H-Y switchyard.

All equipment and instrumentation and control prepared the lay out for p

2 l Resume

Paul' M. Kochery -

PageL3-stacker and reclaimers.

Plan and schedule the outage activities, including manpower and material.

Position:

QC and Test Engineer Dates:

5/1/74 - 12/30/74 Location:

Cutler Hammer Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Plant-Status:

Operating Job

Description:

Develop Test procedures and direct the QC personnel. Help customers QC programmer.

Position:

Electrical Engineer Dates:

5/72 - 5/74

^

Location:

Cape Fear, NC DuPont Fiber Plant -

Davis Electrical Constructors Plant Status:-

Construction - start-up and operation Job

Description:

Design lighting for General Plant.

Resolve installation problem. Schedule the shutdown work. Re-design the control circuit for cutting and bailing machine. Supervision of Drafting Section, Shop and Warehouse.

l Position:

Engineer Trainee 4

- Dates:

9/2/70 - 9/5/71 Location:.

State Electricity Board, Kerala, India Job

Description:

Review specification, inspect the installation of 66 KV substation.

TRAINING:

Course

Title:

Operation Technology Training Total Course Hrs:

16 wks.

Vendor:

Ga. Power Co.

Course

Title:

AWS Certification Total Course Hrs: 40 Vendor:

Ga. Power Co.

Course

Title:

Visual Inspection - Level 2 Total Course Hrs:

16 Vendor:

Ga. Power Co.

9 e

)

Resume Paul M. Kochery Page 4 TRAINING (Cont'd):

Course

Title:

Liquid Pentrant Testing - Level 2 Total Course Hrs: 32 Vendor:

Ga. Power Co.

Course

Title:

Magnetic Particle Testing Total Course Hrs:

16 Vendor:

Ga. Power Co.

Course

Title:

Inst. and Control Inspection Total Course Hrs:

Vendor:

Ga. Power Co.

Course

Title:

Mech. Structural Inspection Total Course Hrs: 40 Vendor:

Ga. Power Co.

Course

Title:

Inspection 21 in, and Smaller Pipes Total Course Hrs:

16 Vendor:

Ga. Power Co.

Course

Title:

Standard First Aid Total Course Hrs: 4

. Vendor:

Ga. Power Co.

Course

Title:

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Total Course Hrs: 4 15 Vendor:

Ga. Power Co.

t Course

Title:

Safe Work Procedure for Closed Vessel Total Course Hrs: 8 Vendor:

Ga. Power Co.

Course

Title:

Codes and Standards Total Course Hrs:.16 Vendor:

Ga. Power Co.

Course

Title:

Tech. Communication Total Course Hrs: 40 Ver. dor:

Neilson 5

9 Y

e L-_

Georgia Power Corppany Route 2. Box 299A Wa/nesboro, Georg a 30830 Telephone 404 554 9961. Ext 1300 404 72&S114, Est 3%O L

Georgia Power D. O. Fost.,

ka N1 WM" W IT M*"

re ge Vogtfe Project September 14, 1984 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation File: X7BC06 Attention: Ms. Elinor G. Adensam, Chief Log:

GN-416 Licensing Branch #4 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wash'ington, D.C.

20555 REF.: Dutton to Adensam, 4/14/84, Generic Letter 82-33 NRC DOCKET NUMBERS 50-424 AND 50-425 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NUMBERS CPPR-108 AND CPPR-109 V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT - UNITS 1 AND 2 PROGRAM PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIElf

Dear Mr. Denton:

The referenced letter stated a commitment to provide you with the subject plan approximately twenty-four (24) months prior to fuel load.

Enclosed please find twelve (12) copies of the subject plan.

Should you have any questions on the enclosed submittal, do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours tr y,

D. 0. Foster D0F/ JAB /sw Enclosure xc:

M. A. Miller R. A. Thomas J. A. Bailey L. T. Gucwa G. F. Trowbridge, Esquire L. Fowler C. A. Stangler J. E..loiner, Esquire G. Bockhold, Jr.

goo 3

'\\*

.