ML20135C525

Provides Comments on Draft Version of AP600 Task Analysis Activities as Part of Review of Human Factors Engineering Section to AP600 Standard Safety Analysis Rept

ML20135C525
Person / Time
Site:	05200003
Issue date:	12/04/1996
From:	Huffman W NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Liparulo N WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
References
NUDOCS 9612060333
Download: ML20135C525 (12)

Text

-. . - .. .-. - - . - . - . - - .

. . December 4, 1996 Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo, Manager i Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Analysis '

Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division l Westinghouse Electric Corporation P.O. Box 355 l Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230

SUBJECT:

COMMENTS ON AP600 RELATED OPEN ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH ELEMENT 4 0F THE HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING PROGRAM REVIEW MODEL (HFEPRM) 1

Dear Mr. Liparulo:

l In a letter to Westinghouse dated September 8,1995, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff provided comments on a draft version of the AP600 Task Analysis Activities as part of its review of the human factors engineering section to the AP600 standard safety analysis report (SSAR). In Revision 9 of the AP600 SSAR, dated August 9, 1996, Westinghouse has submitted a revised Task Analysis Implementation Plan which is based on the previous staff comments and Element 4 of the HFEPRM. The staff has reviewed the Task i Analysis Implementation Plan of revision 9 of the S5AR. Enclosed with this letter are the detailed staff comments and update to the open item status of the human factors review of the AP600 design certification related to Ele-ment 4 of the HFEPRM.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, you can contact me at (301) 415-1141.

Sincerely, original signed by:

William C. Huffman, Project Manager ,

Standardization Project Directorate l Division of Reactor Program Management i Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i Docket No.52-003

Enclosure:

AP600 DSER Open Item Resolution ,9 of Element 4 4 Task Aaalysis f~7 I cc w/ enclosure: \l '

See next page DISTRIBUTION: i C Docket File PDST R/F TMartin PUBLIC DMatthews TRQuay TKenyon BHuffman JSebrosky DJackson JMoore, 0-15 B18 WDean, 0-17 G21 ACRS (11) BBoger, 0-9 E4 CThomas, 0-9 H15 JBongarra, 0-9 HIS 060063 DOCUMENT NAME: A:EL-4REV1.LTR T3 seceive a copy of this document, Indicate in the bem: 'C' s Copy without ettechment/ enclosure *E* = Copy with attachment / enclosure 'N" = No copy 0FFICE PM:PDST:DRPM l BC:hHFB:DRCO N D:PDST:DRPM l l NAME WCHuffmhnt h CIfiomWP / TR0uay )yM DATE 12 6 /96 12/(-)/96 12/ k /96' (W 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 9612060333 961204 y ==oseog3  ;

T ggggggs y

4 Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo Docket No.52-003 Westinghouse Electric Corporation AP600 i

1 cc: Mr. B. A. McIntyre Mr. Ronald Simard, Director 4

Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing Advanced Reactor Programs i

Westinghouse Electric Corporation Nuclear Energy Institute Energy Systems Business Unit 1776 Eye Street, N.W.

P.O. Box 355 Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Washington, DC 20006-3706 Mr. John C. Butler Ms. Lynn Connor Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing Doc-Search Associates Westinghouse Electric Corporation Post Office Box 34 Energy Systems Business Unit Cabin John, MD 20818 Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Mr. James E. Quinn, Projects Manager LMR and SBWR Programs Mr. M. D. Beaumont GE Nuclear Energy Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division 175 Curtner Avenue, M/C 165 Westinghouse Electric Corporation San Jose, CA 95125 One Montrose Metro j

11921 Rockville Pike Mr. Robert H. Buchholz l Suite 350 GE Nuclear Energy l Rockville, MD 20852 175 Curtner Avenue, MC-781 San Jose, CA 95125 Mr. Sterling Franks 4

j U.S. Department of Energy Barton Z. Cowan, Esq. l NE-50 Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott  !

19901 Germantown Road 600 Grant Street 42nd Floor  !

Germantown, MD 20874 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 1 Mr. S. M. Modro Mr. Ed Rodwell, Manager Nuclear Systems Analysis Technologies PWR Design Certification Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company Electric Power Research Institute Post Office Box 1625 3412 Hillview Avenue Idaho Falls, ID 83415 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Mr. Frank A. Ross Mr. Charles Thompson, Nuclear Engineer U.S. Department of Energy, NE-42 AP600 Certification Office of LWR Safety and Technology NE-50 19901 Germantown Road 19901 Germantown Road

{ Germantown, MD 20874 Germantown, MD 20874

)

~

AP600 DSER Open Item Resolution Element 4 Task Analysis Element 4 is being reviewed at an Implementation Plan Review level. Therefore,

, Westinghouse submittals should describe the proposed methodology in sufficient j detail for the staff to determine whether the methodology will lead to products that meet the HFE PRM acceptance criteria for the element. The actual completion of the plan will then take placc after design certification.

While some implementation plans can be reviewed on their own merits, the staff may request a sample analysis which demonstrates the application of the methodology and its results. ITAAC/DAC are needed for completing the implementation plan and providing the results to the staff for review.

To address task analysis open items, Westinghouse submitted a draft document describing their task analysis process, entitled "AP600 Task Analysis Activi-ties" on May 24, 1995. The staff reviewed this document and provided comments to Westinghouse in an NRC letter dated September 5, 1995. Numerous telephone conversations were conducted to discuss and clarify NRC comments and Westin-ghouse technical information.

1 Following the review and subsequent open item discussions, Westinghouse i submitted SSAR (Revision 9) Section 18.5, AP600 Task Analysis Implementation Plan. In addition, Westinghouse submitted WCAP-14695, Description of the Westinghouse Operator Decision-Making Model and Function-Based Task Analysis Methodology.

The following is an overview of the status of the results of the review for all Element 4 open items.

Open Item (0ITS #. DSER #) Current Status 1338 18.5.3-1: Task Analysis Scope Resolved 1339 18.5.3-2: Critical Task Evaluation Resolved 1340 18.5.3-3: Task Analysis Methods Resolved 1341 18.5.3-4: Task Analysis Job design Action W 1342 18.5.3-5: TA Methodology Source Materials Resolved Related Open Items:

1364 18.9.3-2: Input to Procedure Development Action W 1395 18.12.3-1: Task HSI Inventory Action N (Minimum Inventory)

Enclosure

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

~

~

Open Item 18.5.3-1: Task Analysis Scope -

1. Criterion: The scope of the task analysis should include selected 3 representative and important tasks from the areas of: operations, main-tenance, test, inspection, and surveillance. The analyses should be directed to the full range of plant operating modes, including start-up, normal operations, abnormal and emergency operations, transient conditions, low power 4

and shutdown conditions.

DSER Evaluatfon: In response to RAI 620.29 Westinghouse indicated that the scope of task analysis will include all operations tasks for the full range of plant operating modes for the MCR. The analysis will cover operations that i are critical to plant safety both inside and outside the MCR related to any I facilities where these actions need to be performed. Maintenance, test and '

inspection task analyses will be performed for those tasks determined by the PRA to be potential areas of high safety risk. While this scope is accep- i table, the response indicates that the threshold for defining critical or  !

high-risk has not been determined. Since this threshold determines whether or l not maintenance, test and inspection tasks will be included in the analysis, the threshold definition is needed for the staff to accept the task analysis scope. Also, further discussion is necessary to clarify how the PRA will be i

used to identify the tasks and the PRA levels to be included (e.g., Level 1 -  !

core damage and Level 2 - release from containment).  !

Proposed Resolution 1

' To address the issue of task analysis scope and the other DSER open issues l related to task analysis, Westinghouse submitted a document describing their  !

task analysis process, entitled "AP600 Task Analysis Activities (transmitted I to the staff on May 24,1995). l The Westinghouse approach to task analysi:: is to evaluate tasks from two perspectives: function-based task analysis (FBTA) and operational sequence analysis (0SA). FBTA is described in SSAR (Revision 9) Section 18.5.2.1, Function-Based Task Analyses and in WCAP-14695, Description of the Westing-house Operator Decision-Making Model and Function-Based Task Analysis Method-ology. The scope of the FBTA is on decomposition of the higher level func-tions (as described in Level 4 in SSAR Figure 18.6-9 (Figure 18.5-1 in SSAR Revision 9). As indicated in the DSER, this approach is an appropriate and acceptable means of assuring that function-based requirements are identified i that are not dependent on specific operator tasks.

The scope of the OSAs was identified in the Westinghouse AP600 task analysis 4

activities document. The scope is identified as including the full range of plant operating modes, including start-up, normal operations, abnormal and i

emergency operations, transient conditions, low power and shutdown conditions.

These will include tasks representing the full range of activities in the AP600 ERGS and tasks identified as critical or risk-significant.

While this information clarified part of the task analysis scope issue, the task analysis activities document did not address whether task analyses will be performed on representative maintenance, test, inspection, and surveillance tasks. This issue was clarified in SSAR (Revision 9) Section 18.5, AP600 Task

[ 2

Analysis Implementation Plan. SSAR (Revision 9) Section 18.5.1, Task Analysis Scope, indicated that the traditional task analyses will include tasks that involve maintenance, test, inspection, and surveillance. The tasks selected will involve activities involving " risk-significant" SSCs. This information acceptably addressed the staff's concern involving task analysis scope. j 1

SSAR (Revision 9) appropriately incorporated the information included in the 2

task analysis activities document that contributed to the resolution of this issue.

Based on the information provided this DSER item is resolved and the criterion is satisfied.

STATUS OF OPEN ITEM: Resolved t

Open Item 18.5.3-2: Critical Task Evaluation

2. Criterfon: Tasks should be linked using a technique such as operational sequence diagrams. A review of the descriptions and operational sequence diagrams should identify which tasks can be considered " critical" in terms of 1 importance for function achievement, potential for human error, and impact of task failure. Human actions which are found to affect plant risk via PRA

^

importance and sensitivity analyses should also be considered " critical." All critical tasks shall have specific task analyses performed for them. The '

determination of PRA/HRA critical human actions should consider internal and external initiating events, and actions affecting the PRA Level I and II analyses (see Element 6 for an explanation of PRA/HRA analyses). Where critical functions are automated, the analyses should consider all human tasks including mc,nitoring of the automated system and execution of back-up actions if the system fails.

DSER Evaluation: There are three aspects of this criterion to be addressed: j (1) idenuficcion of critical tasks in task analyses (such as operational l sequence diagrams) and PRA, (2) analysis of critical tasks, and (3) analysis i of human tasks associated with automatic actions. l Regarding (1), as is discussed in the DSER Evaluation of criterion 3 which follows, the Westinghouse approach to task analysis focuses on the cognitive requirements of tasks which are organized in a decomposition of plant func-tions. It is unclear whether operational sequences, which tend to be event / scenario based, are considered. Thus the role of task analysis in I specifying tasks as critical needs to be clarified.

With respect to PRA, Westinghouse response to RAI 720.133 indicates that the identification of critical human actions is not completed pending the comple-tion of sensitivity analyses.

Regarding (2), the SSAR does not indicate how critical tasks were evaluated in the task analysis. (In a meeting on June 14, 1994 at the NRC, Westinghouse indicated specific task analyses were performed for those tasks that were identified as critical but these have not been provided to the staff for review.)

3 i

1 Regarding (3), as described in RAI 620.72, the Westinghouse approach explicit-ly identifies human tasks associated with automated systems in order to

• identify monitoring and control requirements. Thus this aspect of the criterion is acceptable.

Proposed Resolution While the scope of the task analysis includes critical or risk-significant tasks, the task analysis activities document and WCAP-14651 (Revision 1), In-tegration of Human Reliability Analysis with Human Factors Engineering Design Implementation Plan, assert that at present, PRA results indicate that "there are no AP600 tasks that meet the criteria for critical or high-risk tasks."

SSAR (Revision 9) Section 18.5.1, Task Analysis Scope, stated that the analyses will involve actions identified as " critical human actions or risk-4 important tasks." While, at present, no tasks meet the Westinghouse criteria, the SSAR clearly indicates they will be included if future analyses identify such tasks. The staff has found acceptable the Westinghouse criterion for risk-significant tasks (see WCAP 14651, Revision 1, which discusses the definition of risk-significant tasks).

Based on the information provided, this DSER item is resolved and the criterion is satisfied.

STATUS OF OPEN ITEM: Reso1ved Open Item 18.5.3-3: Task Analysis Nethods i 3. Crfterion: Task analysis should begin on a gross level and involve the

, development of detailed narrative descriptions of what personnel must do.

Task analyses should define the nature of the input, process, and catput required by and of personnel. Detailed task descriptions should address (as i appropriate):

• Information Gathering

• Decision-Making Requirements

• Response Requirements

• Feedback Requirements

• Workload

!

• Task Support Requirements j

• Workplace Factors

• Staffing and Communication Requirements

• Hazard Identification

. NUREG-0711 contains a more detailed breakdown of the types of information i contained in each area identified above.

DSER Evaluation: The Westinghouse functional task analysis methodology begins a

with the high-level functional goals and decomposes them. A goal-means structure will be used to map the cognitive and physical tasks that define the operational space of the plant to each plant function. The goal means

structure representation is based on the concept of describing the plant's 4

functional processes in terms of the goals to be achieved and the

means/rnechanisms available for achieving them.

f-Cognitive task analysis methodology is used to identify the monitoring /

feedback, planning and control requirements. A set of 11 questions are

identified for each node in the functional decomposition model in SSAR j Section 18.6.7 and RAI 620.47 that are organized into these categories (see i also Table 1 in WCAP-13957). The answers to the questions become the database which is used to write task descriptions which are used to support HSI design.

Samples of the task descriptions are contained in Westinghouse's response to 620.71.

6 Since the emphasis of the task analysis is of cognitive requirements, the

methodology described will acceptably provide the necessary information to i support the definition of requirements for information gathering, decision-i making requirements, response, and feedback.

4 i It is not clear how the methodology will address the other categories of j information identified in the criterion above. For example, it is not clear

how the methodology will address the time flow and workload effects of i

! performing crew tasks, such as following a procedure. These considerations l l are typically addressed in what Westinghouse refers to as " traditional" task analysis (RAI 620.70 gives the task analysis approach described in NUREG-0700 as an example). In response to RAI 620.28, Westinghouse stated that "the cognitive task analysis deals only with the decision making tasks that are to be made by the operations staff. The complete function-based task analysis includas_ both the results of cognitive task analysis and the traditional task analysis that includes the control actions required and the steps needed to get to the appropriate control actions." The function-based task analysis methodology described in the SSAR does not appear to include such methods. In i fact, SSAR Section 18.6.7 indicates that traditional task analysis approaches l "are of little or no use in those areas where effective decision making is the  !

essence of the task."  ;

SSAR Section 18.6.4 does indicate that " traditional" task analyses will be used for personnel tasks such as field equipment operation but a methodology l is not described beyond a reference to Drury et al.,1987 which does not in I itself adequately describe the methodology as it will be applied to AP600  ;

tasks. It would also seem appropriate to address the same cognitive questions in these task analyses as well. 4 The staff agrees that the functional decomposition approach and cognitive task analysis methods are appropriate to the design of an effective HSI (as the HFE PRM criteria indicate). However, the temporal, workload, staffing, etc.

aspects of performing tasks in a control room are an important considerations at the task analysis stage and are an important contributor to HSI design.

Thus, while the emphasis on cognitive factors is supported by the staff, these other factors should be given consideration. Clarification of the application of task analysis methods is needed to satisfy this criterion. Specifically, how are the cognitive task analyses and " traditional" methods integrated to analyze crew tasks, what decision criteria are used to judge whether tasks need the cognitive task analysis, and what is the total set of task analysis data that will result from the completion of all task analysis methods.

5

Proposed Resolution Westinghouse provided information regarding task analysis in the task analysis activities document. The document included a discussion and clarification of the integration of both FBTA and OSA approaches the task analysis in the AP600

(

design process. While the focus of FBTA is on decomposition of the higher level AP600 functions as described in detail in the SSAR, the focus of the OSA will be the analysis of the operational tasks as defined within the scope of task analysis activities, j

The OSAs will be performed in two phases. First, (0SA-1) tasks will be  !

developed to include: plant state data, data source, actions, criteria / 4 reference values, feedback, time, sequencing requirements, support require- '

ments, and work environment considerations. These results will provide the operational requirements for task performance. These requirements and j

constrains provide input into M IS design development. -

The resulting designs will be tested in concept tests which will enable  !

further refinement of the analysis results. To accomplish this a second OSA (0SA-2) will be performed on a representative subset of the tasks analyzed in l the first phase of OSA, which include those which are risk important and those  ;

where there are performance concerns. These analyses will address the:

completeness of available information, time to perform tasks, operator i workload, and staffing. '

This information addresses the staff's concerns regarding the use of I traditional analysis methods, their integration with FBTA, the information to be derived from task analysis activities, and its input and use in the detailed MIS design. In summary, the combination of FBTA and OSA provides a particularly strong technical basis for identifying operational requirements to be addressed in the detailed MMIS design.

l In a telephone conference (September 13,1996) among NRC, BNL, and Westing-house, Westinghouse indicated that the task analysis section of the SSAR will include a " bottom-up" description (which addressed concerns regarding com-pleteness and accuracy of the FBTA, discussed in NRC Letter to Westinghouse dated August 8, 1996). SSAR (Revision 9), Sections 18.5.2.2, (0SA-1) and 18.5.2.3, (0SA-2), as discussed above, acceptab1y address the staff's concern about completeness.

SSAR (Revision 9) Section 18.5.2, Task Analysis Implementation Plan, appropri-ately incorporated the information included in the task analysis activities document that contributed to the resolution of this issue.

Based on the information provided this DSER item is resolved and the criterion is satisfied.

STATUS OF DPEN ITEN: Reso1ved 6

l l

Open Item 18.5.3-4: Task Analysis Job Design

5. Criterion: The task analysis should incorporate job design issues such

, as:

The number of crew members Crew member skills Allocation of monitoring and control tasks to the (1) formation of a meaningful job, and (2) management of crew member's physical and cognitive workload.

DSER Evaluation: This is not addressed as part of task analysis in the SSAR as discussed in conjunction with the previous DSER Evaluation of criterion 3.

Proposed Resolution l

A indicated in the discussion of Open Item 18.5.3-3 above, the second set of l OSA evaluation will incorporate crew staffing considerations as described in  !

SSAR (Revision 9) Section 18.5.2.3. The workload assessment as part of these 1 analyses will provide "an indication of the adequacy of staffing assumptions" (p. 18.5-4). Where high workload or time limits occur, alternative staffing assumptions, task allocations, or design changes will be evaluated. With respect to skills, Westinghouse indicated that skill requirements addressed by NRC requirements for training are assumed, i.e., no special skills are assumed for AP600 operators. This is an acceptable approach. .

Westinghouse further addressed this issue in the task analysis activities document which was subsequently incorporated into SSAR Section 18.5.3 (Revision 9). The section indicated that job design considerations such as staffing and crew skills are the responsibility of the COL. A COL action item '

was identified in the task analysis activities document that stated: " Combined License applicants referencing the AP600 certified design will develop a job design document that specifies the full scope and responsibilities of each control room position." This was considered acceptable provided the document considered the assumptions and results of the task analyses described in the SSAR and the task analysis activities document.

SSAR (Revision 9) Section 18.5.2, Task Analysis Implementation Plan, appropri-ately incorporated the information included from the task analysis activities document that contributed to the resolution of this issue with the following exception. In SSAR (Revision 9), Section 18.5.4, Combined License Information Item, the COL item states that " Combined License applicants referencing the AP600 certified design will address the scope, responsibilities, and skills of each main control room position." This description was changed to delete the reference to the development of a job design document. The staff considered the provision of a rationale of job design considerations to be an important aspect of the AP600 design review to be performed after certification.

Therefore, deletion of this information is not acceptable. Further, the staff's cor.cerns regarding assumptions and results of the task analyses were not included. Specifically, the task analysis COL item should also state that 7

j the COL applicant will perform task analyses according to the implementation j plan and provide the results to the staff for review...etc. Thus, this item 1 remains Action W.

l STATUS OF QPEN ITEM: Action W l

Open Item 18.5.3-5: Task Analysis Nethodology Source Materials

8. Criterion: The applicant's effort sheuld be developed using accepted industry standards, guidelines, and practices. A list of documents which may l be used as guidance is provided in the HFE PRM.

j DSER Evaluation: The cognitive task analysis methodology is based largely on the work of Rasmussen (1986) and Westinghouse (Woods, et.al.), and is consis-tent with the recommendations of IEC-964 as per the HFE PRM. However, this

criterion cannot be found acceptable until the issues discussed under Criteri-j on 3 are resolved.

J l Proposed Resolution l In the task analysis activities document, Westinghouse identified the i

documents that served as the basis for the development of their task analysis i methodology. These documents included: NUREG/CR-3371, IEC 964, MIL-STD 1478, i- and a NATO document entitled " Applications of human performance models to system design". These documents, in conjunction with the basis documents for the FBTA, provide a solid and acceptable technical foundation for a comprehen- l j sive task analysis. '

4 SSAR (Revision 9) appropriately incorporated the information included in the I task analysis activities document that contributed to the resolution of this j issue.  !

l Based on the information provided, this DSER item is resolved and the  !

criterion is satisfied.

j

) STATUS OF OPEN ITEM: Resolved

, Open Issue 18.9.3-2: Input to Procedure Development

7. Criterion: The task analysis results should provide input to the HSI design, procedure development and personnel training programs.

i DSER Evaluatfon: In response to RAI 620.75, Westinghouse indicated that task

analysis "is the foundation of the design of the information and control

system." Task analysis results are translated into task descriptions which serve as the basis for HSI design. SSAR Section 18.6.5 indicated that "the

impact of cognitive task analysis is for the AP600 human engineering design team to realize that the responsibility of the operators to continually I evaluate the operational success or failure of executing the current prcce-4 8

s

l' dure. It is a fundamental assumption in the design of the computerized support system of the AP600 that the human operators have a thorough under-l standing of the functional purpose or objective of each procedure...Providing the operators with a thorough understanding of purposes and objectives is a

}, requirement of the AP600 Operator Training Program."

4 l

With respect to the input of task analysis results to training and procedures, SSAR Section 18.8.9.4.1 specifically identified the results of task analvsis as providing a basis for the development of the AP600 training program. In SSAR Section 18.6.7, task analysis is identified as being used to derive

procedures; however, SSAR Section 18.9.8 on procedure design does not indicate

{ the use of the task analysis results.

I f Though task analysis is specifically identified as providing a basis for HSI ,

and training program design, its status with respect to procedure development

is unclear. Since the issue is limited to procedures, it has been identified

! in'0 pen Issue 18.9.3-2: Procedure Basis. Resolution of this criterion is, therefore, linked to that open issue and a separate issue is not warranted.

Proposed Resolution l SSAR (Revision 9) Section 18.5.2, Task Analysis Implementation Plan, does not

identify the relationship between task analysis and procedure development.

l SSAR (Revision 9) Figure 18.2-3, Overview of the AP600 Human Factors Engineer-l ing Process, does not show a task analysis as an input to either procedure or i training development. This may be because since the DSER was prepared, both I

have been defined as COL items. However, SSAR (Revision 9) Section 18.9, l Procedure Development, does not reference task analysis. In WCAP-14690,

! Designer's Input to Procedure Development for the AP600, it states that the j " plant operating procedures' technical bases... shall be consistent with ...

! task analyses" (p 2-1) and that E0Ps technical content should be developed j from the ERGS with additional input from task analysis among other things.

While the staff considers these statements to be appropriate, there is concern i that sufficient i formation n is not being provided to the COL applicant to i determine how and where to use the results of task analysis. Further, while the relationship between task analysis and training was clearly indicated in

SSAR Revision 0 (reviewed by the staff for the DSER), the discussion of training program development is considerably shorter in SSAR Revision 9 l (Section 18.10, Training and the discussion was deleted). Thus, the staff has

a concern over the application of task analysis to training program develop-i ment. WCAP-14655, Revision 1, Designer's Input for the Training of HFE V&V Personnel, does indicate that the results of task analysis will serve as input to the training of V&V personnel, but this document is limited in scope to V&V personnel and does not address the development of training plant personnel.

l Westinghouse should clarify the relationship between task analysis and the j development of procedures and training programs.

STATUS OF OPEN ITEM: Action W 3

s 9

l

Part of Open Item 18.12.3-1: Task HSI Inventory

6. Criterfon: The task analysis results should be used to define a minimum ,

inventory of alarms, displays, and controls necessary to perform crew tasks based upon both task and instrumentation and control (I&C) requirements.

l DSER Evaluation: This item is deferred until resolution of the minimum inventory issue (see DSER Section 18.12).

Proposed Resolution SSAR (Revision 9) Section 18.5.2, Task Analysis Implementation Plan, indicated that the FBTA is used as a completeness check on the availability of needed indications, parameters, and controls (p. 18.5-2). The SSAR also indicated that the OSAs will provide information on the inventory of alarms, controls, and parameters needed to perform sequences selected for analysis which include those addressed in the discussion of Task Analysis Criterion 1, Scope above.

Based on this information, the DSER open issue for task analysis (DSER criterion 6) is resolved and the criterion is satisfied. However, the minimum inventory issue (0ITS #1395) is still under review by the staff. j STATUS OF QPEW ITEN: Action N j l

l l

i i

10