ML20133G625
ML20133G625 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Grand Gulf ![]() |
Issue date: | 08/01/1985 |
From: | Kinter L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
References | |
NUDOCS 8508090010 | |
Download: ML20133G625 (61) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:,. .A oq'o
![# pa ;w 4c'gg UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{ -E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k j August 1, 1985 Docket No. 50-416 LICENSEE: Mississippi Power and light Company (MP&l) FACILITY: Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF JUNE 27, 1985 MEETING WITH MP&L REGARDING DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW The purpose of the meeting was to discuss NRC staff comments based on its review of the program plan for Grand Gulf Unit I detailed control room design review (DCRDR) to be conducted by the licensee. These staff comments had been trans nitted to the licensee by staff's letter dated April 22, 1985. Enclosure 1 is a list of attendees. Enclosure 2 is MP&l's response to NRC comments on the program plan and slides used in the meeting to describe the progran plan. Enclosure 3 is MPal's handout for the discussion of system function review and task analysis portion of the control room design review. The integrated schedule for the DCRDR is provided on page 3 of Enclosure P. The summary report is scheduled to. be submitted in July 1983 as required by license Condition 2.C.(36). Modification of emergency operating procedures (E0P) will begin in September 1985. Staff has scheduled complet1)n of its review of the E0P procedures generation package submitted by licensee on April 11, 1985, for August 31, 1985. MP&I. personnel responsible for the DCRDR are identified on page 5 of Enclosure 2. Licensee has hired General Physics Corporation as a human factors consultant. Resumes of the consultant's personnel are given on pages 22 through 35 of Enclosure 2. At the conclusion of the meeting, NRC staff said, based on its review of the program plan and MP&l's response to NRC staff comments that the program plan was adequate and that an in-process audit would not be made. The staff requested that significant changes to the docketed program plan be documented in the Sumary Report to be submitted in July 1986. Staff also said that a preimplementation audit would probably be made after the summary report was submitted.
- 92. ' 3M.N.k,
, , , , , . , , . L. L. Kintner, Project Manager ,,C 'e,r,tified By - ._
l.icensing Branch No. 4 Division of licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc: See next page 8508090010 850801 PDR ADOCK 05000416 F PDR
r .1 Mr. Jackson B. Richard Mississippi Power & Light Company Grand Gulf Nuclear Staiton
.CC*
Robert B. McGehee, Esquire The Honorable William J. Guste, Jr. Wise, Carter, Child, Steen and Caraway Attorney General P.O. Box 651 Department of Justice Jackson, Mississippi 39205 State of Louisiana Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley, Jr. and Reynolds . Vice President, Nuclear Operations 1200 17th Street, N.W. Mississippi Power & Light Company Washington, D. C. 20036 P.O. Box 23054 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Mr. Ralph T. Lally Manager of Quality Assurance Office of the Governor
. Middle South Services, Inc. State of Mississippi P.O. Box 61000 Jackson, Mississippi 39201 New Orleans, Louisiana 70161 Attorney General Mr. Larry F. Dale, Director Gartin Building Nuclear Licensing and Safety & ckson, Mississippi 39205 Mississippi Power & Light Company P.O. Box 23054 Mr. Jack McMillan, Director Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Solid Waste Mississippi State Board of Health Mr. R. W. Jackson, Project Engineer 880 Lakeland Bechtel Power Corporation Jackson, Mississippi 39206 15740 Shady Grove Road Gaithersburg, Maryland 20760 Alton B. Cobb, M.D.
State Health Officer Mr. Ross C. Butcher State Board of Health Senior Resident Inspector P.O. Box 1700 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Route 2, Box 399 Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 President Claiborne County Board of Supervisors Regional Administrator, Reg Sn II Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com.ission, 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. J. E. Cross, General Man, ger Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Mississippi Power & Light Compar.>. P.O. Box 756 Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150
1 , Enclosure 1 ATTENDEES June 27, 1985 Meeting With Mississippi Power and light Company Name Affiliation H. E. Kook MP&l./ Nuclear Plant Engineering Steve Bennett MP&t./ Nuclear lic. & Safety Sam Hobbs MP&t./Mgr. Nuclear lic. & Safety Richard Stam General Physics Donald C. Burgy General Physics Jim Bongarra NRC/DHFS/PSRB W. G. Kennedy NRC/DHFS/ASRB Richard J. Eckenrode NRC/DHFS/HFEB 1.. l.. Kintner NRC/NRR/Dt./LB #4
EHCLOSURE 2 GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION - UNIT 1
- Detailed Control Room Design Review Program Plan Response To NRC Comments June 27, 1985 6
9 MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
i r . GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION - UNIT 1 DCRDR PROGRAM PLAN RESPONSE TO NRC COMMENTS Agenda
- 1. Opening remarks Sam Hobbs
- 2. DCRDR status & schedule Sandy Kook
- 3. Response to comments Sandy Kook Steve Bennett Don Burgy Rich Stamm
- 4. Open discussion (All) l l
l 1 l
9
- 6 l heece steet.ag l P oin.g ^
Am h
- p. c,..- ., ;
P I lsoeren *<e : o: 1 T hones e..n . (.....- ...,
,I ,
l e- ...
..saa0G.iPGs. . _ .a a
c,o . .r ..... t. c.vs ,e .. . . ., ,c,. . . .]
.....ic.......
l l l i
, , , 1.,
A
. Mess ,c.o.-. -- - ,, c . -.=,--. 3, ce . . ' ,.----.7 . . ., =,e, ,i o- , . , , + ,a====a '"a' s er .r.os.o,., ,-s. . - .o . ~ +-
s .. T . . . .
, ...T,... ,
r.... -- c, - ,.
. v.n..t o .. i e. e . ce . u. . '. ..orn'ay.a_ _ j 8 e. e. k,.., .
Oe.e.aomeat i t e Y t
,. . V 'f atQ s POA l ut3 fe M**"*****
esea=#ar.en 8 pours t.... 8 eae.# caeon Ansvos y e bevisto, Aw as O W9.h New@t
$, Jb l -
6 VS I4atten l i f if l mf 0 saeae*< aces l v v , .w -
- e. . .. - . . 3 ..... -,
.essee ae & 8 uam '.. awics e
- L . . m.es... ,y -tcas. - .
e
.ao .)...
9 m
, l %,0,,,6 , l T r..a/ I me r . ...,
l a.< - e. 1, [ R990s900* t 4 s 1 [} mseom. ... l ee,.e., 1 .e....... l .e he*9 6 { Deewmeat & kamsse ; lawe*= eat Setoewesen 8 0908.,88089
~~ , .. p . . .e ... , . . ~Y Y ,c . as ...,e s ,, .. 0*'***' .. , s, ' C,4eae 8 osus I**"'
- n. ,
; *"C 1......' I'*'
l I' Y [.s...,c.~,,,,.g
. . . . . . . , . l.. .. .a... j U _ --i 4 64 I
wa. ea cw
- g es. C. i.e a 6
/
GGNS-1 INTEGRATED PROJECT PLAN SCHEDULE FOR - DCRDR - EP UPGRADE CT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL PLANNING DCRDR TEAM ORIENTATION e DCRDR PROGRAM PLAN X EP UPGRADE ORIENTATION e PGP X TASK PLANS (TOTAL OF II) HF CRITERIA INTEGRATED PROJECT PLAN EP DEVELOPMENT PREPARE PSTGS PSTG TECHNICAL VERIFICATION PREPARE DRAFT EP'S EP TECHNICAL VERIFICATION w SFR 8 TASK ANALYSIS (EP 8 DCRDR) VAllDATION (EP S DCRDR) MODIFY EP*S DCRDR REVIEW PHASE OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW CR INVENTORY CR SURVEY DCRDR VERIFICATION DCRDR ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION HED ASSESSMENT HED RESOLUTION SCHEDULED RESOLUTIONS OTHER ACTIVITIES DATABASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM-INITIATE e COMPLETE e DCRDR FINAL
SUMMARY
REPORT X DCRDR EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
REPORT g g CHANGE REVIEWS ge g e DOCUMENTATION DCRDR X NRC SUBMITTAL EP UPGRADE
a , COMMENT: Review Team The multidisciplinary mix of the core team and the qualifications of its individual members appears to be satisfactory to accomplish a successful DCRDR. However, the Program Plan gives no indication as to specific assign-ments of the core team members in the various DCRDR tasks. The staff is concerned about the level of involvement of human factors personnel.
RESPONSE
MP&L recognizes the crucial role of human factors personnel in a DCRDR program, and has retained General Physics Corporation as Human Factors Consultant (HFC) to provide fully qualified and experienced personnel for the GGNS DCRDR. These human factors specialists participate in or perform every DCRDR task as defined in the " Integrated Project Plan for the DCRDR and EP Upgrade Program." Current resumes of all HFC personnel involved with the GGNS DCRDR (excepting administrators, clerks, etc.) are included in Attachment 1. Due to the resignation of MP&L's M. A. Memon, the DCRDR Team now consists of three MP&L representatives and two HFC members. The MP&L members are H.E. Kook, C.A. Bottemiller, and W.J. Hendry (with H.E. Kook assuming M. A. Memon's responsibilities) . The HFC members consist of D.C. Burgy and one team member position which is filled by either L.R. Schroeder or R.J. Liddle as is most appropriate. A summary of HFC participation is shown below:
- Planning Phase - The HFC prepared initial drafts of planning documents per MP&L specifications. MP&L and the HFC then jointly completed the planning phase documents.
- Review Phase - The HFC performed (or will perform) all review activities with MP&L support and subject matter expertise as necessary. MP&L will provide a validation crew familiar with GGNS.
- Assessment and Implementation Phase - The HFC members of the DCRDR Team participate equally with the MP&L members to assess HEDs. The FFC will also recommend tentative HED resolutions, and assist in determining final resolutions with an implementation schedule.
- Reporting Phase - The HFC will prepare initial drafts of reporting phase documents per MP&L specifications. MP&L and the HFC will then jointly complete the reporting phase documents.
The level of HFC involvement in the GGNS DCRDR exceeds NUREG-0737 Supplement I requirements, and will ensure that the program is based on sound human factors principles. I ( 4 I
DCRDR TEAM MEMBERS H. E _K00x, JR. (IEAM LEADER) - PROVIDES ELEC _ EilGINEERING IflPUT, TECHilICAL DIRECTION, JBICAL tKL INTERFACE, AND OVERALL PROGRAM MANAGEMEllT; SERVES AS LIAISON WITH lUCLEAR PLANT ENGillEERiflG. C. A. BOTTEMILLER - PROVIDES OPERAJIONS AND TRAINING INPUT; SERVES AS LIAISON WITH PLAtlT STAFF - IRAltlING.
- 11. J. HENDRY - PROVIDES NUCLEAR EllGINEERING, OPERATIONS, AND
~
LICENSIllG IllPUT; SERVES AS LIAISON WITH llVCLEAR LICEf4S!flG AllD SAFETY. D. C. BURGY - PROVIDES HUMAff FACTpRS ENGillEERING IllPUT; SERVES AS LIAISON WITH THE HrC.
- l. R. SCHROEDER/R. J. LIDDLE - PROVIDES HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERIflG INPUT.
5 l
SUMMARY
OF HFC PARTICIPATI0fl PLANNING PHASE - IH R HING DOCUMENTS PER H2CPREPAREDINITIALkg(FTSOFPL Pal _ SPECIFICATIONS. M AND THE iC THEtt JOINTLY COMPLETED THE PLANNING PHASE DOCUMENTS. REVIEW PHASE - IHE HFC PERF0 E REVIEW ACTIVITIES WITH I j,D 5 (OR WILL SUPPORT AND PERFORM) SUBJECT MATTERALL EXPERTISE AS NECESSARY 8l WILL PROVIDE A VALIDATION CREW FAMILI AR WITH GGil$. n ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION PHASE - IHE HFC MEMBERS OF THE ULKUK1R$pPAR;:lCI)$1EEQUALLYWITHTHEM3'. 8MEMBERS [Q ASSESS NtilS. ,HE irl WILL ALSO RECOMMEND TENTATIVE H.U RESOLUTIONS, AND ASSIST IN DETERMINING FIflAL RESOLUTIONS WITH Aff IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE. E IllITIAL DRAFTS OF REPORTING g: PORTING PHASE - IHE HFC PHAS DOCUMErlTS PER WILL nr PREPg&L SPECIFICATIONS n?8L AND THE H.C WILL THEil JOINTLY COMPLETE THE REPORTING PHASE DOCUMENTS. 6
C0KHENT: System Functions Review and Task Analysis The task analysis methodoloFy refers to the GGNS-1 Plant Specific Technical Guidelines (PSTGs) or draft E0Ps as being the starting point of the task analysis. The staff agrees with the use of the PSTGs but is concerned that the E0Ps are written with the control room design and as built instrumentation in mind. The GGNS-1 Activities Integration schedule indicates that the task analysis follows E0P development. This is not in accordance with the re-quirements of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 which specifies the need for task analysis to support both the DCRDR and E0P development.
RESPONSE
MP&L is fully committed to perform a DCRDR and EOP development in accordance with NUREG-0737 Supplement 1, and has never intended that the E0P development process be completed prior to DCRDR/EOP task analysis and validation. A rore in-depth discussion of the GGNS DCRDR and E0P development process will demon-strate that the scheduling of these programs is consistent with all require-ments. A summary of this process is presented in Attachment 2, and discussed below:
- The GGNS Procedures Generation Package (PGP) was prepared and submitted to the NRC in April 1985, and contained the PSTG Preparation Guide, the E0P Writer's Guide, the Verification and Validation Plan, and the E0P Training Program Description.
- The BVROG Emergency Procedure Guidelines, revision 3 (approved by the NRC by letter dated November 23, 1983) were used with the PSTG Preparation Guide to produce the GGNS Plant Specific Technical Guidelines (PSTGs).
- After PSTG verification, the PSTGs were converted into draft E0Ps using the E0P Writer's Guide. At this point, Control Room instrumentation had not been considered in the development of the draft E0Ps.
- These draft E0Ps will be used for the initial System Functions Review and Task Analysis and the DCRDR/EOP Validation. (The validation crew will become familiar with the new E0Ps prior to validation). It is emphasized that task analysis and validation are highly interactive processes.
- The draft EOPs are then modified as necessary as a result of the validation to develop the finalized (human factored) E0Ps.
- The E0Ps are then verified and forwarded for operator training prior to implementation.
As shown above, the draft E0Ps are a direct conversion of the PSTGs into an EOP format. Task analysis and validation are then crucial in developing these draft E0Ps into the finalized EOPs to be implemented at GGNS. The MP&L decision to perform one task analysis for both the DCRDR and E0P development, and one validation for both efferts, clearly shows the commitment to fulfill the requirements of NUREG-0737 Supplement 1. 7
SUMMARY
OF EOP UPGRADE PROCESS BWROG EPGs (REV 3) PGP-O PSTG GUIDE if PSTGs PGP - V & V PLAN PGP-t EOP WRITER'S 1r , GUIDE DRAFT
'EOPs PGP- _ _ SIMULATOR V 8 V PLAN SCENARIOS If DCRDR/EOP TASK ANALYSIS S VALIDATION PGP-t EOP WRITER'S GUIDE if MODIFY EOPs PGP-V & V PLAN V
TRAIN ~ OPERATORS AND IMPLEMENT 8
COMMENT: Comparison of Display and Control Requirements With Control Room Invectory The Program Plan indicates that panel layout drawings will be used as the source of the control room inventory. While this would appear satisfactory to determine the " availability" of displays and controls, the staff is concerned that layout drawings may not provide sufficient details of displays and controls to determine their " suitability" to provide the required task infor-mation and control characteristics.
RESPONSE
MP&L has utilized panel layout drawings only as one of several initial sources for the Control Room Inventory. These initial inputs included:
- Panel layout drawings
- Recent color photographs of Control Room panels
- GCNS Instrument Index sorted by location These inputs were utilized to complete the Equipment Characteristics forms, as seen in Attachment 3. Where informatior from these initial sources was not adequate to complete the characteristics form for all Control Room displays and controls, the information was obtained directly from the Control Room.
All information was loaded into the DCRDR computerized database management system (DBMS). The completed Control Room Inventory was then checked against the Control Room panels to ensure accuracy. A review of example Control Room Inventory data (as seen in Attachment 4) shows that this information is adequate to accurately determine both the
" availability" and the " suitability" of displays and controls to provide the required task information and control characteristics.
9
SUMMARY
OF CONTROL ROOM INVENTORY PROCESS 9 *
- 1. GATHER INITIAL DATA, INCLUDING:
PANEL LAYOUT DRAWINGS RECENT COLOR PHOTOGRAPHS OF CONTROL ROOM PANELS GGNS INSTRUMENT INDEX SORTED BY LOCATION
- 2. COMPLETE EQUIPMENT CHARACTERISTICS FORMS
- 3. LOAD INTO DBf1S
- 4. CHECK ALL DATA VS. ACTUAL CONTROL ROOM CONFIGURATION I
l l 10
a'. COMMENT: 1 Assessment of Human Engineering Discrepancies The Program Plan indicates that, prior to assessment, a human factors specialist will make an initial recommendation of resolution for each HED. While the staff agrees that a human factors specialist is best qualified to accomplish this task, we do not understand why it is to be accomplished prior to assessment. The staff is concerned that the recommendation may bias the assessment process. The Program Plan describes a satisfactory methodology for assessing indi-
, vfdual HEDs but makes no mention of the cumulative or interactive effects that might result from several less significant HEDs.
RESPONSE
MP&L concurs that an initial recommendation of HED resolutions prior to assessment may (inadvertently) bias the assessment process. Therefore, g assessment of an HED will be completed prior to the initial recommendation of a resolution by a human factors specialist. This change to the Program Plan will be documented in the DCRDR Final Summary Report. The portion of the comment regarding cumulative and interactive effects of less significant HEDs is addressed in the next comment and response. 11
SUMf1ARY OF ASSESSt1Ef!T AflD IMPLEMEllTAT10fl PROCESS l
- 1. INDIVIDUAL DCRDR TEAM MEMBERS INDEPENDENTLY ASSESS HEDS.
l
- 2. Tsg DCRDR TEAM REACHES A CONSENSUS Otl ASSESSMENT OF EACH H;u, INCLUDING:
DOCUMENT AND CLOSE-0UT INVALID HEDS C0f1BINE GENERIC HEDS - DETERMINE THE PROPER CATEGORY FOR EACH HED. 3. gpyANFACTORSSPECIALISTSMAKESINITIALRECOMMENDATIONSFOR tu RESOLUTION.
- 4. THE DCRDR TEAM DETERMINES TENTATIVE HED RESOLUTIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE.
- 5. MPal MANAGEMENT DETERMINES THE HED RESOLUTIONS AND $N DULE FOR INCLUSION IN THE DCRDR rINAL JMPLEMENTATIONSCH{DSNOTTOBEFULLYRESOLVEDAREJUSTIFIED.
SUMMARY
REPORT. H_ . 12
COMMENT: l 1 Selection of Design Improvements The lack of consideration of cumulative and interactive effects of the less significant (e.g., Category IV) HEDs presents some concern to the staff. The Program Plan states only that correction of Category IV HEDs will be optional, and will depend on the nature and complexity of the discrepancy. Incon-sistency of design is often, in itself, a human engineering discrepancy. Some uncorrected Category IV HEDs may result in unarceptable inconsistency.
RESPONSE
MP&L has well considered the cumulative and interactive effects that might result from several less siFnificant HEDs. The validation activities are especially designed to identify this type of concern for emergency response situations; the operating experience review (operator questionnaires and interviews) will identify many of these concerns for normal / abnormal plant operations. In addition, the DCRDR computerized database management system (DBMS) will be utilized to sort category IV HEDs by panel af ter the DCRDR Team has completed resolution recommendation. If more than four category IV HEDs exist per panel, they will be reviewed by the DCRDR Team Leader and a human factors specialist for enemulative and interactive effects. If these HEDs are similar in: operation of the panel, survey checklist area, or human performances modality (i.e., all visual or auditory modality), and have a "no action" l resolution, they will be evaluated for upgrading to Category III by the DCRDR Team Leader and a human factors specialist. The knowledge and experience of the HFC and the verification of design improvements (see the following comment and response) will provide final assurance that adequate identifi-cation and correction of these cumulative and interactive effects is made. MP&L agrees that inconsistency of design may be, in itself, a human engi-neering discrepancy. The human factors criteria developed during the DCRDR documents and ensures a consistent design incorporating sound human factors principles. Additionally, the GGNS DCRDR cssessment and implementation process requires that each uncorrected FED (regardless of category) be fully justified. MP&L will consider inconsistency of design when determining if adequate justification exists to not correct any HED. 13 j
IDErlTIFICATI0fl 0F CUMULATIVE AtlD IllTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF HEDs VALIDATION OPERATING EXPERIENCE Review HED SORT AND REVIEW BY PANEL UTILIZING THE DBMS 14 i
COMMENT: Verification That Design Improvements Provide the Necessary Correction and tiot Introduce New HEDs The Program Plan indicates that a verification process will be accomplished but it provides no description as to how it will be done. The staff cannot comment on the adequacy of this NUREG-0737 Supplement I requirement.
RESPONSE
MP&L is fully committed to performing a verification that design improvements provide the necessary correction and do not introduce new HEDs. The extent of this verification will depend upon the extent and severity of corrections found to be necessary during the DCRDR Assessment and Implementation Phase. Although the DCRDR Team has begun HED assessment, a det'ermination of the extent of corrections (and therefore verification) has not been made. MP&L tentatively plans to utilize the GGNS Simulator to " mock-up" most or all corrections. Experienced human factors specialists will then determine if additional corrections are needed and the extent of revalidation necessary. However, this plan (including subsequent additional corrections and revali-dation) will be followed only if the number and severity of the overall DCRDR findings warrants. MP&L will document and justify in the DCRDR Final Summary Report that design improvements provide the necessary correction and do not introduce new HEDs. 15
TErlTATIVE VERIFICATI0fl 0F DESIGil IMPROVEf;EilTS PROCESS
- 1. MOCK-UP CORRECTIONS Ill THE GGilS SIMULATOR
- 2. REVIEW MOCK-UP (HUMAN FACTORS SPECIALISTS)
- 3. IllITIATE ADDITIONAL CORRECTI0tlS IF REQUIRED
- 4. PERFORM REVALIDATION IF REQUIRED l
l 16
COMMENT: Coordination of Control Room Improvements With Other Programs The Program Plan states that coordination among the DCRDR, SPDS, Training, Reg. Guide 1.97, and E0P Programs will occur but does not describe how it will be accomplished or managed and who is responsible for the management.
RESPONSE
MP&L's Nuclear Safety and Compliance Section is responsible for the coordination of all emergency response capability (ERC) activities. Mr. Steve Bennett is the ERC Coordinator and has been following the ERC integretion requirements since SECY-82-111 issuance. Mr. Bennett was involved in many ERC related activities on GGNS prior to issuance of Generic Letter 82-33/NUREG-0737 Supplement 1 (GL 82-33) including licensing on the GGNS Preliminary Design Assessment, implementation of the existing symptom based emergency operating procedures, and preparation of the initial Regulatory Guide (RG 1.97) Compliance Report. Upon issuance of GL 82-33 he prepared MP&L's April 15, 1983 response submittal and integration schedule. He has continued to work with and provide direction to appropriate organizations and personnel throughout the ongoing ERC projects. As a means to provide guidance on ERC activities for GGNS, a planning document entitled " Emergency Response Capability Integrated Project Plan" was prepared. This plan includes discussion on ERC regulatory requirements, ERC task activities, integration requirements, responsible organizations, documentation files and monthly reporting processes. This plan is presently in draft form and is being revised to reflect modifications and expansion of ERC integration. An " Emergency Response Capability Integrated Schedule" has been prepared showing task activities, task duration, integration points and overall ERC critical path activities. Separate chedules for major ERC projects (i.e., DCRDR, E0P Upgrade and SPDS) have also been prepared and updated by the responsible MP&L organization. The ERC Integrated Schedule is being placed on a computerized scheduling system to allow regular update and progress reporting. In addition, the GGNS SPDS Verification and Validation (V&V) program is being extended to include V&V on the integration of the SPDS with the other ERC activities. This will assure SPDS integration with the E0P and DCRDR processes, application of the RG 1.97 instrumentation, and validation of the SPDS as it relates to the concurrent DCRDR/EOP validation activities. . 17
C0 ORDINATION OF CONTROL ROOM IMPROVEMENTS O ERC COORDINATION - MP8L NUCLEAR SAFETY AND COMPLIANCE O ERC COORDINATOR - STEVE BENNETT 0 ERC COORDINATOR INVOLVEMENT PDA/DCRDR SYMPTOM-BASED E0Ps R.G. 1.97 SPDS INP0 NUTAC G.L. 82-33 o ERC PROJECT COORDINATION ERC PROJECT PLAN ERC INTEGRATED SCHEDULE ERC MONTHLY REPORTING ERC ACTIVITY INVOLVEMENT SPDS V8V EXTENSION TO INCLUDE ERC ACTIv! TIES 18 ,
E ERC INTEGRATED PROJECT PLAN CONTENTS REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS GGNS BACKGROUND ERC TASK ACTIVITIES ERC TASK INTEGRATION PR0aecT ORGANIZATION / RESPONSIBILITIES DOCUMENTATION ERC INTEGRATED SCHEDULE
-~ ,
19
.il Igg .I J'I il Hi
- 2. s
*)g !l i
I -
.jI! l5 i
til ! !2
--- :l I.I t .g i I I ]} I I!] itl li;l 111 ! - !o E 5 I } - - -
fif Il - lk!
~
ljj _if-lj)e - 01 i l i I
-~
f! r-g I t l lh ~ I -~
$5 !!,f -
flI L
$3 ~~
f!2 jih1 liil - l!!!! J,j ti 1 li!! In i
}' t-1L j]
M - j3) }ji }!!} !!) l!!} - l t 6 - ..
=
jit
- !!] !!!
Suds W0830 8dO3 L6*L DW DNINIVW1 l 20 1
7 SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION 9 t ERF i tlCEnsuc, l lO REOLITS 8 ERF UPGRADES (NON-COMPUTER) ERF EOPS, CRD MOOS, -l TRAINING l TTcAt#4G PREP. ETC. , t_gFR NEEDS N SPDS DESIGN ERF COMPUTER E/aNA@lE l gasis SYSTEM w s t/6fiijATION _ l i H PRE-OP TEsist
$4Pl ANT IdlyEP[CEl hEGMIS gppg APPilCATIONS p ~ , _
3.' REOMIS. q . . '
' , luPLEMENTED SP \ ,-
COMPUTER) ' ON ERF tTd i TW TEM COMPUTER SYSTEM 4 VENDOR SUPPtIED SPDS - - - - ERF CouPUTER COMPUTER SYSTEt4AND fi f itAT O EOMTS [PEC CA ON J ERF CmWR e 6
ATDCHMENT 1 Resunes of HEC Personnel:
- D. C. Burgy
- R. J. Liddle
- L. R. Sduveder
- C. D. Gaddy
- R. I. Stam
- D. B. Barks
- J. A. Link F
22
DONALD C. BURGY Director, Human Factors Engineering EDUCATION Ph.D. Candidate, Applied-Experimental Psychology, The Catholic University of America M.A., Applied-Experimental Psychology, The Catholic University of America B.A., Psychology, Swarthmore College EXPERIENCE General Physics Corporation 1979 - Present NW. Burgy directs all human factors engineering and man-machine systems derign and evaluation work in the Company. His human factors expertise includes system analysis, information processing, man-computer interactions, performance evaluation, training systems, and speech /non-speech communications. Representative projects include: o Control Room Desian Reviews Directed or participated in nuclear power plant control room design reviews at ten nuclear power plants:
~
Virginia Electric and Power Company's North Anna and Surry Stations, Commonwealth Edison Company's Zion, LaSalle, and Dresden plants, Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company's Zimmer plant, Pennsylvania Power and Light Company's Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Illinois Power Company's Clinton plant, Public Service Electric and Gas Company's Salem Nuclear Generating Station, and Portland General Electric Company's Trojan Plant. e Task Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Crews Managed a major 18-month NRC research program on nuclear power plant control room crew task analysis. A data collection approach and methodology used to conduct a task analysis of nuclear power plant control room crews was developed ~in this program. The task analysis methodology used in this project was discussed and ~ compared to traditional task analysis and job analysis methods in a Program Plan report. The data collection l was conducted at eight power plant sites by teams l comprised of human factors and operations personnel. Plants were sampled according to NSSS vendor, vintage, simulator availability, architect-engineer, and control room configuration. The results of the data collection effort were compiled in a computerized task data base. 23
e Communications Problems in Nuclear Power Plants, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Managed project on Guidelines for Internal Plant Communications for EPRI. These guidelines were developed based on problems previously documented in EPRI research projects. Participated in an EPRI Technical Planning Study on Communications Problems in Nuclear Power Plants prior to managing the guidelines study above. Developed methodology for collection and analysis of real-time communications data in operating power plants. e Prototype Large Breeder Reactor (PLBR) Operability Study Participated in an EPRI operability study of the two major PLBR designs -- pool and loop types. Coauthored a PLBR Design Familiarization course text. Conducted task analysis for initial design evaluations of PLBR control console layout, instrumentation and control needs. e Submarine Design Human Factors, U.S. Navy Developed task analysis format and collection methodology to promote team performance improvement and training enhancement in the Navy Submarine Advanced Combat Systems (SUBACS) program. 1976 - 1978 The Catholic University of America Human Performanc*_ Laboratory Mr. Burgy conducted applied and basic research experiments on auditory signal classification of complex underwater sounds in research sponsored by the Human Factors Engineering branch of the Office of Naval Research. PROFESSIONAL Member, Acoustical Society of America AFFILIATIONS Member, American Psychological Association Member, Human Factors Society ) SELECTED Applied Human Factors in Power Plant Design and Ooeration, PUBLICATIONS General Physics Corporation, 1980, Coauthor with P. A. Doyle, H. F. Barsam, R. J. Liddle.
" Survey and Analysis of Communications Problems in Nuclear Power Plants," EPRI Report NP-2035, September 1981, Coauthor with D. A. Topmiller, D. R. Rot.., P. A. Doyle, J. Espey. " Task Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Crews,"
Final Report, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., May 1983. Coauthor with C. Lempges, A. Miller, L. Schroeder, H. Van Cott, B. Paramore. 24 j
Prinun? J. T.Tnnr.m Manager, Human Factors Power Services annr1 PION M.S., Industrial Engineering and Operations Research, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University B.S., Psychology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University IIPERIENCE General Physics Corporation 1980 - Present Mr. Liddle is a human factors engineer responsible for managing power plant control room design reviews with regard to methodology, staffing, and training programs. He provides in-house staff instruction in technical and administrative aspects of control room reviews. Mr. Liddle serves as project manager for several human factors project.' and has had experience with utility / Nuclear Regulatory Commission negotia-tions involving human factors issues. Representative projects include: o Procedures Generation Package Developed plant-specific Procedures Generation Packages for utilities in response to Item 7.2.b of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737; these PGPs contain descriptions of procedure verification and validation methodologies and technical writing guidelines. e Program Plan Development Developed program plans fe various utilities which present detailed methodologies utilized in the performance of control room design reviews; the program plans encompass management, staffing and data collection and interpretation issues. e Control Room Design Review Managed detailed control room design review . projects at the Gulf States Utilities Company River Bend Station, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, and Pennsylvania Power and Light Company Susquehanna Steam Electric Station and Washington Public Power Supply System No. 2; acted as lead human factors engineer in control room design review for Georgia Power Company's Plants Vogtle and Hatch and managed human factors preliminary 25
design review at Long Island Lighting Company's Shoreham Nuclear Power Station; and was project , manager for the Surry Interim Conicol Room Upgrade project for Virginia Electric and Power Company. e Selection Testing Administers General Physics Basic Mathematics and Science Test (BMST) for operator training and selection; assists in human reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear plant applications and the accompanying task analytic procedures. e Development of Human Engineering Standards Compiled and developed standards, in control coding, legend plate design, mimic and demarcation lines, and color coding practices. e Human Factors Training Instructs utility and industrial personnel in topics of performance evaluation techniques, experimental methodology and control room design
. review procedures.
1977 - 1978 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University In his research project, Mr. Liddle investigated the use of videotape recording apparatus in an assessment center procesB. He assisted in scheduling and debriefing participants, data collection and interpre-tation, and report writing. PIEFESSICRULL Member, Human factors Society AFFILIATICBIS PGlLICATI(MIS Applied Human Factors in Power Plant Design and Operation, General Physics Corporation, 1980, Coauthor with D. C. Burgy, P. A. Doyle, H. F. Barsam. Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Detailed Control Room Design Review Program Plan, General Physics Corporation, 1982. Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Detailed Control Room Design Review Program Plan, General Physics Corporation, 1983, Coauthor with D. C. Burgy. (12/84) 26
Lor 1BLR R. SODMIER l Senior Scientist I 1 EDDCATIOi Ph.D., Experimental / Applied Psychology, Lehigh University j M.S ., Engineering Psychology, Lehigh University B.S. , General Engineering, University of Illinois I B.A., Psychology, University of Illinois EXPERIENQt General Physis Corporation j 1982 - Present Dr. Schroeder's areas of expertise include task and ' error analysis, pro dures validation egaignent design studies, operations research, and organizational design and management. He is currently managing the control room design review at the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant and NUREG-0737 integration services for Plant I Hatch. He has also assisted in developing a task analysis methodology for River Bend. Other representative projects include: supporting NRO research in the application of control rom crew task analysis data for human engineering design and staf fing areas, evaluating SPDS placement, reviewing emergency operating procedur'es, assessing the human f actors aspects of ECP Flowcharts, and reviewing equipnent tagging procedures in nuclear plants. D r. Schroeder has also developed and given numerous supervisory skills workshops for Ros and STAS. l He is currently providing human f actors integration l services to Georgia Power Company to meet Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 reg 2irements.
, 1981 - 1982 U.N.C. Nuclear Industries I
Dr. Schroeder worked as a human f actors specialist, interfacing with engineers and other staff in - identifying and solving problens relating to eg2ipnent design, the use of procedures, and training efforts at l Hanf ord's N-Reactor. He also performed a human l factors review of the 105-M control roon in support of an ongoing control room upgrade progran. 27 l I
l 1974 - 1980 Department of Psychology, Moravian College Dr. Schroeder's respansibilities as Assistant Professor and Depart 2nent Chairperson included planning and coordinating a day and evening program in psychology involving over 100 majors, serving on several college committees, supervising individual field study, independent study, and honors projects, and serving as academic advisor to day and evening session students having an interest in applied psychology. 1973 Wicp5ahl Electric Ccmpany Dr. Schroeder worked as a consultant, ident'.fying
. potential organization problerns and condueting problem solving sessions.
1972 Jewish Employment and Vocational Services As an industrial psychologist, Dr. Schroeder consulted with several industries and goversnental agencies in order to develop, validate and administer
- job-related" personnel selection tests under a Depart 2nent of Labor contract.
PEFESSIGULL Manber, Human Factors Society l AFFILIhTIGES Manber, American Nuclear Society PMILIOLTIGIS " Human Factors Review of M-Reactor Centrol Room," U.N.C. Nuclear Industries Report UN1-2097, June 1982.
"A Human Factors Guided Survey for Systems Developnent," American Nuclear Society Winter Meeting, December 1981, coauthor with D.R. Fowler. ' Control Room Human Factors in Context,"
American Nuclear Society Winter Meeting, November,1982, coauthor with D. R. Fowler
& D . E . F ria r. " Learning Style Data Applied to Nuclear Power Plant I Training Programs." American Nuclear Society Annual Meeting, June 1983. " Task Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Crews, Vol. I & II", NUIEGVG-3371, U.S . Nuclear Regulatory Canmission, June 1983. Authored with D. Burgy, C. Lempges, A. Miller, H. Van Cott, and B.
Paramore. (1/85) 28
CATHERINE D. GACDY Senior Scientist EDUCATICH Ph.D., Personality / Experimental Psychology, he Catholic University of America M.A., Psychology, Towson State University B.A., Psychology, Frostburg State College LICENSES AND Licensed Psychologist: Maryland CERTIFICATIONS EEPNRTEMr*W General Physics Corporation 1980 - Present Dr. Gaddy provides expertise in human factors design applications and personnel selection and training. Representative projects includes e Human Factors Design Review Participated in human factors control room design reviews at several plants including the Pennsylvania Power and Light Susquehanna Steam Electric Station j and the Iong Island Lighting Shoreham Station; served j as project manager for reviews at the Cincinnati Gas and Electric Zimmer Station and the -Illinois Power Cbmpany Clinton Station; participated in design and review of emergency response facilities and related software at the Zimmer Station. e Emergency Procedure Validation Served as project manager for the development of a validation program for emergency operating procedures at the Consumers Power Midland Plant. o Operability Review and Crew Task Analysis
., Participated in a human factors operability review of ,
l prototype large breeder reactiors as part of an Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) review; assisted in developing a methodology for a task analysis of plant operating crews for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 29
1 i e Applied Research l Assisted in study of power plant communications for EPRI; participated in project for Sandia National j Iaboratories on psychological scaling of expert i estimates of human error probabilities in nuclear power plants. , o Selection Test Develcoment l Served as project manager of personnel selection test : development for the Intermountain Power Project; prepared generic selection testing program for instrumentation and control and health physics technicians. e Management / Supervisory Skills Training Prepared course materials and text, and conducted training in management and supervisory skills for several utilities including the Philadelphia Electric Peach Bottom Station, the Southern California Edison San Onofre Station, and the Niagara Mohawk Nine Mile Point Station. 1979 - 1980 Center on Aging, University of Maryland Dr. Gaddy participated in policy-related research for the National Institute on Aging and the Administration on Aging. 1978 - 1979 Towson State University Dr. Gaddy was an instructor in the Psychology Department. PROFESSIctDLL Human Factors Society AFFILIATI0ES American Psychological Association PUBLICATIONS " Career Involvement of Women in Dual-Career Families," Journal of Counseling Psycholocy, in press. Coauthor with C. R. Glass and D. B. Arnkoff.
" Bibliography on Dual-Career Families, Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 1982, M , Ms. 2404, Coauthor with C. R. Glass, D. B. Ackoff, M. E. Coogan, -- -- M. A.- McCabe , S. Meeks. " Communications Problems in Nuclear Power Plants," paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, August 1981, Coauthor with P. A. Doyle, D. C. Burgy, D. A. Topmiller.
Behavioral Science and Human Factors in Power Plant Applications, General Physics Corporation, 1980, Coauthor with J. R. Turney, P. Doyle, S. L. Cohen. Dr. Gaddy has authored six additional papers and publications (1/84) 30 ,
RIGARD I. S'DJM Senior Engineer EDUCATIGI M.S., Nuclear Engineering, Ohio State University B.S., Chemistry, State University of New York College at Potsdam LIG7EiES AND Senior Reactor Operator, Boiling Water Reactor /6 CERPIFIGTIGIS EEPERIENCE General Physics Corporation 1982 - Present Mr. Staum provides technical assistance to power utilities in areas of operator and plant system procedure developnent and preparation; reactor physics and operations; surveillance procedure developnent; systems descriptions preparation and review; and inservice inspection program reviews. Repres entative projects include: , o Detailed Control Reczn Design Review /Emergencv Procedure Verification and Validation, Gulf S tates Utilities, River Bend Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Developed and implemented scenarios for DCRDR Task l Analysis of BWR Owners Group Emergency Procedure I Guidelines and Emergency Procedure Verification and ) validation; independently derived Information and Control Reg 2irements for DCRDR; evaluated Emergency Procedures, identified procedure discrepancies and provided recommendations for resolution. e Detailed Control Room Design Review / Emergency Procedure Validation, Vernont Yankee Nuclear Station Developed and implemented scenarios for validation of Vennont Yankee Emergency Procedures; utilized scenarios and operator walkthroughs to evaluate Emergency Procedures, identify procedure discrepan-cies and provide recommendations for resolution; independently derived Information and Control Req 11renents for DCRDR and perf ormed control room inventory analysis. l 31
e Detailed Control Room Design Review, Omaha Pablic Power District, Fort Calhoun Nuclear S tation Currently perfoming DCRDR Task Analysis of Canbustion Engineering Owners Group Emergency Procedure Guidelines; independently deriving Information and Control Requirements for couparison with actual control room inventory. e Southern California Edison's San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 Performed Configuration Management Analysis to ' review and evaluate all design changes and proposed f acility changes to SCNG Unit 2 to determine the impact on simulator sof tware, hardware, and tr aining. , e Inservice Inspection Program Review, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2 Perf omed complete boundary classification review of Class 1, 2, and 3 pressure retaining systems based on the reg 2irements of 10TR and Regulatory Guide 1.26; PEIDs, plant Classification Manual and NRC transmittals were reviewed for confomance and canpleteness in preparation for the second 10-year inspection cycle. 1981 - 1982 General Electric Camny, Startup Test Operations Unit Mr. Stamm was a nuclear startup engineer, certified SRO on BWR/6, and worked at the Grand Gulf Nuclear S tation. His resp 3nsibilities included revising plant systens descriptions; reviewing operating procedures; developing and instructing reactor physics and applied engineering courses, and instructing operators in BWR systens and operations. 1979 - 1981 General Electric Capany, Radiological Testing and Instruentation Unit Mr. Stamm was an associate engineer assigned to the Vallecitos Nuclear Center. His activities included design of fuel rod scanner detector housing and shield, developnent of procedures for monitoring U-235 inventory in waste incinerators analysis of radioisotope transport in radwaste volume reduction process, and perfomance of fuel and piping gamma scans and dose rate measurenents at reactor sites. 1977 - 1979 Ohio State Unisersitv, Demrtaent of 5uclear Eneineering Mr. S tanm was a graduate research associate. He participated in the developnent of ganna ray cameras for medical use; and in the design, fabrication and evaluation of gemanium strip detectors. (1/85) 32
l navIn n. naEKs Senior Scientist EDUCATION B.S., Psychology, University of Tenn'essee, Chattanooga EIPERIENCE General Physics Corporation 1980 - Present Mr. Barks' responsibilities include project management, writing program plans, developing experimental design, and marketing corporate capabilities in human factors engineering. Representative projects include: e Human Factors Design Reviews Participated in human factors control room design reviews at several nuclear plants including Omaha Public Power District's Port Calhoun Station, Gulf States Utilities' River Bend Station, and Georgia Powers' Plant Vogtle; also participated in human factors design review of letter sorting machines for the United States Postal Workers Union. e Task Analysis of Operator Action Served as projset manager for the task analysis of nuclear power plant operator actions; developed a methodology to demonstrate what information could be derived from task analysis; investigated various data sources to demonstrate the applicability to the nuclear power plant environments task analysis used to develop performance criteria for Oak Ridge National Laboratory using errors of omission and commission and compliance with procedure step for various plants, o Criteria for Safety Related Operator Actions Developed a model of operator performance that was implemented on a computer to be used as a design evaluation tool; results used to provide an alternative to an American National Standards Institute standard, o Management and Supervisory Skills Training Taught supervisory skills to shif t technical advisors at the E. I. Batch Nuclear Power Plant. 33
e Systems Training Manual Assisted in the writing of systems training manual for a cogeneration power plant for Syncrude Canada Ltd 1978 - 1980 Benry J. Kaiser erly Mr. Barks' duties included the performance and evaluation of construction testing for the Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company. As Principal Generation Construction Turnover Engineer he was responsible for seeing that all items turned over to the client were accurate and that appropriate documentation was on file. PUBLICATIONS " Criteria for Safety-Related Operator Actions: Final Report," USNRC Report NUREG/CR-3515, January 1984. Coauthor with E.J. Kozinsky, A. N. Beare, F. E. Gomer,- L. H. Gray.
" Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Task Analysis: Pilot Study for Pressurized Water Reactors," USNRC Report NUREG/CR-2598, May 1982. Coauthor with E.J. Kozinsky and S. Eckels. " Criteria for Safety-Related Nuclear Power Plant Operator Actions: Initial Boiling Water Reactors (BWR)
Simulator Exercises", USNRC Report NUREG/CR-2534, September 1981. Coauthor with A. N. Beare, D. S. Crowe, E. J. Kozinsky, P. M. Haas.
" Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Task Analysis: Pilot Study for Boiling Water Reactors," USNRC Report NUREG/CR-3415, June 1983. Coauthor with F. E. Gomer, E.
J. Kozinsky, G. F. Moody. 6/84 34
t JOTCE A. LINK Human Factors Specialist EDUCATION B.S., Psychology, Frostburg State College EXPERIENCE ' General Physics Corporation 1984 - Present Ms. Link provides specialized consulting services in the areas of Human Factors Engineering. Her responsi-bilities include setting up and maintaining detailed control room design review databases and associated files. Ms. Link also participates in on-site data collection of human factors related data and she participates in data analysis. Ms, Link provides overall computer support services for the Human Factors Department. Representative projects include: e Operator Interviews, Mississippi Power & Light Company, Grand Gulf Station Unit 1 Analyzed Operator Questionnaire responses and conducted on-site operator interviews, and was responsib!e for setting up and maintaining Human Engineering Discrepancy Record database and associated files, e Procedure Validation of Emergency Operating Procedur es Participated in Procedure Validation of the Emergency Operating Procedures for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, e Human Factors Design Review, Gulf States Utilities Company, River Bend Station Responsible for setting up and maintaining the Human Engineering Discrepancy Record database and associated files for Gulf States Utilities; also responsible for client interf ace on the project. (12/84) l 35 l
4 S ATT7CHMWE 2 m of EDP Update w ss i t i 1 I 36 i
SUMMARY
OF EOP UPGRADE PROCESS 1 BWROG . EPGs , (REV 3) l PGP-O PSTG GUIDE U PSTGs PGP - V 8 V PLAN PGP-C EOP WRITER'S U GUIDE DRAFT EOPs 4 PGP- _ _ SIMULATOR
' ~
V 3 V PLAN SCENARIOS U f DCRDR/EOP TASK ANALYSIS
! S VALIDATION PGP-c EOP WRITER'S GUIDE U
MODIFY EOPs l PGP- _ V & V PLAN
< U TRAIN OPERATORS AND IMPLEMENT i
8 37
ATTACHMEt7r 3 Example Equipnent Characteristics Forms [ Reduced Size] i 38
s g n oi n n it a is e . oM P/ Wlo S o
- C r
lo r :s
- r t nh t
e oig w ie :e CL v t e a R D r o in Mr
/ar o
jai n e M/Lg @
- s o nL io:
s ile v a ic DS s it S U n @ C I T SI R E T e C g A R R n a @ A H C T N / r E e r tele M P I Mlo
/ r U Wt n Q
E S o
- e/
pr C e y T. t c dro s e I nR r e b m u N @ C I n o r ie t ipte r c m s a er DaP @ Cd
&na I
D I l e n a P mW
s.
.. . DCRDR TASK PLAN 3 R; vision 1 Attcchm2nt 2 Revision 0 Description of Equipment Characteristics Form f
- 1. PANEL I.D. - the specific panel identification code. It can be a letter code or number code.
- 2. REVIEWER & DATE - the name of the person filling out the equipment characteristics form and the date it was performed.
- 3. I&C DESCRIPTION - this is the noun name description of the instrument or control as it appears on the panel. The Parameter measured should be i included as the last part of the I & C Description where applicable. l l
l
- 4. I&C NLNBER - this is the alpha-numeric identification code given to an p instrument or control.
- 5. INSTRLHENT TYPE - this is either a switch, meter, recorder, controller, potentiometer, pushbuttons, indicator lights, etc.
- 6. RANGE- this is the meter range from minimum to maximum on the scale.
- 7. UNITS - the standard of measurement such as GPM, AMPS, INOHES, RPM, etc.
- 8. DIVISIONS / SCALE - the divisions are listed as major and minor graduations. The scale is either log or linear.
- 9. _ CONTROL / LIGHTS - for a control, list all of the switch positions (i.e. :
open-norma l-clos e ) . For lights, list the color and its meaning when illuminated. 40 ,
. - .-x,g m p h m .-...~. :_-.--~~ M __ ^^ ' " ' - ~ ' # ^^~ '
7 I ATI N T 4 i Ev.anple Control Roam Inventory Data [ Reduced Size] l l l I I i 41
s 4 e t page No. 2 j, g OS/05/A5 g EDUIPMENT CemRACTERISTICS O PANEL ISC PARAMETER ISC INSTRUMENT RANGE UNITS IVISION9 STATES
. ID DE SCRipi lON Nt lHBE R TYPE J/ MIN /SUR g l_OD/L INE AR g g P6sw (VF GAR PRE TRFATMENT E XHAt ST N/A RfCORDER l - 3e46 MR/HR SOE6/10/l N/A g 9600 AUX PLDG Ftrl HANDLINO N/A N/A SWITCH N/A N/A N/A MON A/ MON D g DREA POOt CH SEL g
P600 AtlX Pt DO FIFL HANDLING N/A N/A SWITCH N/A N/A N/A MON D/ MON C ARFA POOt. CH BEL g P6em CONTPOt. ROOM VENT CHANNFL N/A N/A SNITCH N/A N/A N/A MON A/ MON D e SE LE CT g 06em CONTROt. ROOM VENT CHANNFL. N/A N/A SNITCH N/A N/A N/A MON Yt/ MON C SEL EC T g P6no SERVICE NATER EFFLtFNT A E timOST N/A RECORDER 10 - CpH N/A N/A 10E6 to/lOE6 g DJ p600 SERVICE WATER EFFilENT 9 EXHAUST N/A RECORDER RO-ROE 6 CPM S O/ S OE 6 N/A P6e.u) RED FLEL AREA VFNT ENHAtfRT N/A RECORDER 10' - CPM 30' le.sE6 N/A IOE6 P600 DLM-TURBINE ItLOG VENT EXHAUST N/A RECOR R 10'-lOE6 CDM 10'/10E6 N/A O "'** '"""E *""'"" "'"' "'" "'" """'" "'" "'" "'" "'"""'" # PURoE , p- P600 FlXL HANDt.ING AREA VENT N/A N/A BWITCH N/A N/A N/A OFF/ON RED g PuROE P664 INCM VOt.T AC MILOVOLTS N/A METER O-5.25 g*' "AC .5.25/11 N/A g MILOVOLTS Pn64 RtJNNING VOLT AC HILOVOLT5 N/A METER O-5.$5 *AC 5.25/8i HILOVOLTB N/A g g P864 DGil FtXL OIL STOR TM FT N/A METER O-12 FT 1211 N/A g PR64 DGil FilEL Oll. DAY TM IN N/A METER O-60 IN 60/80/5/l N/A P864 DGil VOLT AC MILOVOLTS N/A METER O-5.25 AC 5.25/8 N/A M IL OVOL OTS P864 DGil FREQ HZ N/A METER 55-65 JZ 65/5/8 N/A PR64 125VDC PUS IIDA DC VOLTS N/A METER
, O-850 DC VOLTS 350/30/10/2 N/A g O
e
e e e
. 4 o
O o j g page No. 3 05/05/85 g FfM3IPMENT CHARACTERIRTICS pANFL ISC PARAMITER ISC INSTRijMENT RANGE IJNI TS DIVISIONS STATES ID OFMCRipTION NUMBER TYPE g MAJ/ MIN /SUB
, g LOG /l_INFAR g gg 0864 DGil AMPS AC AMPS N/A METER O-1500 AC AMPS 1500/346/20 N/A g a .k 0864 DG Il FfFlD VOLT DC VOLTS N/A METER O-300 DC VOLTS 399/50/25/5 N/A P864 DG ll FIFLD AMOS DC AMPS N/A METER O-582 DC AMPS 512/828/O N/A
- p664 DO Il NATTS MFGA NAT TS N/A
(, METER O-82 MEGA NATTS 80/2/ N/A Q A864 DG 11 4"I9 MEGA VARS N/A METER MEGA VARS -10/5/O N/A (. +10 +10/5/O g P864 ESF NB MN .SP/9US ISOAINCM AC AMPERES 152-1581 METER O-1500 AC AMPERES 1500/500/0 N/A F09 g P864 AC HILOVOLTS N/A 4.16 P9 MtM1 ISAA METER O-5.25 AC 5.25/1/ N/A HILOVOLTS 0 0864 ESF RFMR .28/BU9 ISAA AC AMPERES 152-1508 METER O-1500 AC AMPERES 1500/500/0 N/A INEM FDR 0 0864 E9F IFMR .31/909 1544 FDR AC AMPERES 152-1584 METER O-8500 AC AMPERES 15no/SOO/O N/A A864 LCC 15PA4 INCM FDR C AMPERES 52-85408 METER O-1200 AC AMPER9 12OO/2tM)/20 N/A Q g P864 480V ICC 15B44 AC VM.T8 N/A METER O-600 AC VOLTS 600/800/50 N/A Q l A864 LCC 15BA2 INCM, FDR OC AMPERES 52'-15201 NETER O-1200 AC AMPERS SEOO/200/50/ N/A 30 Q A864 480V LCC 15B42 AC VOLTS N/A METER O-600 AC VOLTS GOO /lb/5d/t N/A 0
, 0 0864 LCC 159A6 INCM FDR AC AMPEREB N/A METER O-5200 AC AMPERES 8200/200/100 N/A .52-{5608 /20 g }
A864 480V LCC 85PA6 AC VOLTS N/A METER O-600 AC VOLTS 600/100/50/8 N/A O 0864 LCC 15 BAS INCM FDR AC AMPERES N/A METER O-1200 AC AMPERES 1200/200/100
- 52-15508 /20 g
j A864 480 vtCC 15DA5 AC VOLTS N/A METER O-600 OC VOLTS 600/80n/50/8 N/A O o 0864 LCC 15BAl INCM FDR AC AMPERES N/A METER O-leon AC AMPERES 1200/200/100 N/A 52-iSini /eo o o e
~
.. . Enctosuas 3 fG SYSTEM FUNCTION REVIEW AND TASK Af4ALYSIS MISSISSIPPI POWER 8 LIGHT COMPANY I i
MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY IN
\/
Inputs I f Products FSAR System Functions Review e System Functions Descriptions System Descriptions System Functions Form o identify Systems e Classify Systems (Safety vs. Nonsafety) e Describe System Functions if (ite) CR/Sim. Differences Study Scenario Descriptions
- Scenario Descriptions [
i Simulator Malfunctions List e Matrix Scenario Description Form e identify Scenarios
- Describe Scenarios e Review Scenarios against Simulator e Develop initial Systems by Scenario Matrix 4
1I e ResidualTasks for BWROG EPGs Task Analysis Walk throughs Only GGNS 1 PSTGs > e EOP Steps Covered o Identify Residual Tasks e TAWorksheets(% done) ech. Specs. Independently Completed
- Document EOP/EPG Steps Covered i TA Worksheets , g g g e identify Decision Reg I O
e Develop information & Control Req 1 8 i U i E
- Comments on TA Worksheets GGNS 1 Experience Review of Task Analysis Worksheets by GGNS-1 OPS /TRNG m
1f TA Worksheets (~% completed) e Revised TA Worksheets Conduct Simulator Runs Observation Forms e Observation Forms eow qu pment e Realtime (Sequence /Vahd issues) e Walk throughs(Content /Ver.lssues) If OUT V Figure 4. System Functions Review and Task Analysis Steps 1
f T.Q > a s a e,s
- N
-^s , \\ >!\i.
i
, }i . ,
1
- g. z
- 2 t m
@ E 4 2 * # ] . . ,,
I , t t j i @ i g = 1 ,, >5I I t
> a 1
I
=
l
, >i' I jl e 5
j1: i 3 1 @ lj @ >$; H e < i O 1 3 8 1 j
~
al 1 8 L Y ,,
*
- MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
- 1. SCIDDLRIO - operating scenario name and identifier (conspleted during Task Analysis).
- 2. PROCEDURE STEP - procedure step number for GGNS-1 PSTGs or draft EOPs and for the BWROG generic EPGs (completed during Task Analysis).
- 3. TESK/ SUBTASK - a description of the crew member task / subtask in the operating sequence (completed during Task Analysis).
- 4. SCEN. RESP. - a notation designating decision points or branching information needed for correct task execution for the operating scenario as defined in the operating scenario description (completed during Task Analysis).
- 5. CREW MEMBER - the crew member who performs the task (completed during Validation) .
- 6. IDC - the location where the task is performed (completed during Validation).
- 7. DECISIOR AND/OR COtffINGENT ACTION REQUIREKENTS - any contingent decision and/or action requirements that are linked to task performance (completed during Task Analysis).
- 8. INFORMATION AND CXMrTROL REQ. - the information and control requirements for successful task performance (derived independently of the actual I&C in the Control Room). Noted in this column are (1) the system involved, (2) the parameter, component in procedure needed, and (3 ) the relevant characteristics of the parameter or component referenced for the operator to execute the task (completed during Task Analysis).
- 9. MEANS - the actual means (e.g., switch or meter) used by operators to perform the task in the Control Room (completed during Verification and supplemented during Validation).
- 10. IEC IDENT. (PAEEL/WO. ) - the actual IEC identified from walk-throughs that the operators used to perform the task. h e I&C is uniquely identified using a Panel number and Equipment number (completed during Verification and supplemented during Validation).
- 11. VERIFICATION (AVAIL./ SUIT.) - columns that indicate the availability and suitability of the I&C needed for task performance. Rese columns would contain a "yes" or "no" answer that is arrived at through the verification process. "No" entries are detailed further on an Equipment Suitability HED form (similar to Figure C-4 in Appendix C) (completed during Verification).
- 12. SPDS - the presence or absence of the IEC and associated characteristics on the SPDS is noted in the "Y" or "N" columns (completed during Verification) .
- 13. CONKIDFTS/HEDs - any comments relating to the above files and/or reference to related HEDs.
+ Figure 6. Task Analysis Worksheet Field (Column) Definitions 3
INFORMATION & CONTROL REQUIREMENTS FOR TASK ANALYSIS S IDENTIFIED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE EXISTING DISPLAYS AND CONTROLS S DEVELOPED BY SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT USING ACCEPTED SOURCES OF DOCUMENTATION 8 STRUCTURED TO INCLUDE 3 PIECES OF DATA SYSTEM 4 PARAMETER"AND/OR COMPONENT RELEVANT CHARACTERISTICS STANDARDS LISTS RANGE SCALE UNITS SETPOINT (IF NOTED IN E0PS) i i l' 4 L -
a
/
Standard Requirements for Information & Control Needs
- Standard A Control Switch
- 1. Readily accessible
'2. Open/ Closed clearly marked
- 3. Breaker indication provided
- 4. Identified by function Standard B MOV Control Switch
- 1. Readily accessible
- 2. Open/ Closed clearly marked
- 3. Valve position indication provided
- 4. Both lights on when valve in mid-travel
- 5. Identified by function Standard C Pump Controls and Indication
- 1. Readily accessible
- 2. Start /Stop clearly marked
- 3. Identified by function
- 4. Breaker position indication
- 5. Identified by function Standard D Controllery
- 1. Readily accessible
- 2. Auto / Manual clearly marked
- 3. Identified by function
- 4. Demand signal clearly shown 5
Standard Requirements for Information & Control Needs (con't)
' Standard E Reset / Bypass Devices
- 1. Readily accessible
- 2. Reset or Bypass position clearly marked
- 3. Reset or Bypass indication provided (e.g. Reset or Not Reset)
- 4. Identified by function Standard F Continuously Variable Control Devices
- 1. Readily accessible
- 2. Controlled parameter value clearly indicated
- 3. Identified by function Standard G Control Room panels
- 1. Readily accessible
- 2. Clearly labelled
- 3. Internal components raedily accessible (e.g. fuses, terminals, circuit breakers, test switches)
- 4. Internal components clearly labelled by number and function 9
6
. s STANDARD LIST OF RELEVANT CHARACTERISTICS
- 1. Control operation type
- a. Variable
- b. Two position, open/close
- c. Two position, normal / trip
- d. Two position, normal / reset
- e. Manual-auto
- f. Three position, open/ auto /close
- g. Three position, run/ auto / trip
- h. Three position, open/ spring-return-to-normal /close
- i. Two position, on/off
- 2. Type of indicators and scales
- a. Meter, linear, analog
- b. Meter, logarithmic, analog
- c. Digital, meter
- d. Recorder, linear, analog
- e. Recorder / logarithmic, analog
- 3. Lights of position or status
- a. On/off lights
- b. Open/close lights
- c. Normal / trip lights
- d. Normal / reset lights
- 4. Visual and audible annunciator (
- 5. Communications systems
- a. Onsite telephone
- b. Paging /public address
- c. offsite telephone 7
MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
. l INFORMATION AND CONTROL REOutREMENT SOURCES CanWeted by:
Oste: TAW REF. SOURCE OF INFORMATION & CONTROL REOutREMENT FSAR/ Lacetion E0P Sees WOS/AMI Don.c tensi Tech. Seses cPRIGDG Other of Source Saenere Tsuk1.D. 3dE EPG E0h e 8
s g nn ioi n a it e s P/ oM Wlo S o
- C r
lor :s t r t e nhg w oi ie : e CL v t e a R D r o i n Mr
/ar o en iai M/ g
- s o L
nL io: s e ila v i c DS s S it U n G C I T S I R E T e C g A R R n a @ A H C T N / r E e r t e P M el I Mlo
/r U Wtn E
Q S o
- e/
pr C e y Tr d
. o t c s e InR kn m
N @ C I n ore it ipte r c m s a e r DaP Cd
&a n I
D I l e n a P l 1i
s , DCRDR TASK PLAN 3 R visien 1 Attachment 2 Revision 0 Description of Equipment Characteristics Form
- 1. PANEL I.D. - the specific panel identification code. It can be a letter code or number code.
- 2. REVIEWER & DATE - the name of the person filling out the equipment characteristics form and the date it was performed.
- 3. IGC DESCRIP:' ION - this is the noun name description of the instrument or control as it appears on the panel. The Parameter measured should be included as the last part of the I & C Description where applicable.
- 4. I&C NtNBER - this is the alpha-numeric identification code given to an instrument or control.
- 5. INSTRIMENT TYPE - this is either a switch, meter, recorder, controller, potentiometer, pushbuttons , indicator lights, etc.
- 6. RANGE- this is the meter range from minimum to maximtra on the scale.
- 7. UNITS - the standard of measurement such as GPM, AMPS, INCHES, RPM, etc.
- 8. DIVISIONS /SCAtE - the divisions are listed as major and minor graduations. The scale is either log or linear.
- 9. CONTROL / LIGHTS - for a control, list all of the switch positions (i.e. :
ope n-no rma l-clo s e ) . For lights, list the color and its meaning when illuminated. 10 e = me e,. Oeeb.= m .m m e e
. o
' MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY EQUIPteENT SulTABILITY MEDs canomousty: M-g. Smewe-Direct ses g, g TAus REFERENCE Eevement
%, ,,,oso M*' rigy Onnuments teemdeo Aserenewe, g UssusNe Amew*o TakiD a
i 11 I
1
~
l -
- MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 1
l I I l HUMAN ENGINEERING DXBCREPANCY RECORD GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATIDN UNIT-1 DED NO. : 1 PRIORITY AATIpeG:3 DATEe32/23/84 PREPARERsLIDDLE/MATSON/ BISHOP STATUBs3 DATA SOURCE 8
. DECMLIST N0 s B2. 3 DECKLIST AREA:
LOCATION OF DISCREPANCY PANEL P870 INSERT:54C SYSTEM:MS I4C N0s19MC-PIEPR-15: 1&C DESCsMS FLOW METER DESCRIPTION OF DISCREPANCY SCALE IS IN PERCENT AND SHOULD DE IN PSI RECOMENDATIONS INVESTIGATE CHANGING SCALE TO READ IN PSI IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: 12
1 MEETING
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION [ .gge M ,'ib(5)i pg _ s 6 _ 41'6
&.a.
Local PDR NSIC PRC System LB #4 r/f Attorney, OELD E. Adensam Project Manager L. Kintner Licensing Assistant M. Duncan NRC PARTICIPANTS Jim Bongarra W. G. Kennedy Richard J. Eckenrode L. L. Kintner bec: Applicant & Service List}}