ML20140H386
| ML20140H386 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/01/1996 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-3030, NUDOCS 9705130106 | |
| Download: ML20140H386 (6) | |
Text
fPOdM87 g n m3 pugb
%.h.
u ihh h
5 CERTIFIED BY: Robert Seale, October 15, 1996 l
Date Issued: October 1, 1996 h h d 8d ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES: HUMAN FACTORS SEPTEMBER 20, 1996 ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND INTRODUCTION The ACRS Subcommittee on Human Factors met on September 20, 1996, at 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, in Room T-2 B3. The purpose of the meeting was to gather information on the Human Performance Program Plan, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) human factors activities, and the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) human factors research program.
The entire meeting was open to public attendance. Mr. Noel Dudley was the cognizant ACRS staff engineer for this meeting.
The meeting was convened at 8:30 a.m. and adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
ATTENDEES h3St R. Seale, Acting Chairman T. Kress, Member G. Apostolakis, Member D. Powers, Member J. Barton, Member N. Dudley, ACRS Staff I. Catton, Member NRC STAFF 1
M. Biamonte, NRR J. Persensky, RES F. Coffman, RES I. Schoenfeld, RES C. Goodman, NRR L. Spessard, NRR W. Hodges, RES C. Thomas, NRR D. Morisseau, RES J. Wachtel, RES There were no written comments or requests for time to make oral statements received from members of the public. An attendance list of other members of the NRC staff and public is available in the ACRS office files.
g$O DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS Dr. Robert Saale, the Subcommittee Chairman, convened the meeting at 8:30 a.m.,
and noted that the last ACRS report concerning human performance was issued in Di !
April 1993.
He noted the purpose of the meeting and suggested that the Subcommittee meet again to hold discussions with representatives of the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AE0D) before bringing the issue of the Human Performance Program Plan (HPPP) to the full ACRS.
Dr. Powers, ACRS, suggested that based on the number of incidents involving medical misadministration, the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) should also discuss its HPPP activities at the next Subcommittee meeting.
Dr. Powers requested that the staff explain the objectives of the HPPP, how HPPP l
activities were prioritized, and the meaning of the terms " effective" and
" adequate'" as used in the HPPP.
He requested that the staff explain what the assumed risk-worth of a human is and why the value is presently assumed to be too N
i
??c513o106 961001 g-ACRS
~
~
DESIGUATED ORIGINAL l
$8$o PDR g\\\\pf@fRem w W
~
- v I-Minutes:
Human Factors Subcommittee J
3 Septestar 20, 1996
)
high. Dr. Apostolakis, ACRS, suggested that the staff develop a model of human behavior, which could be used with performance data to evaluate the importance
-of each HPPP activity.
i Dr. Catton, ACRS, stated that the codes used to run simulators do not necessarily t
i model severe accident physical behavior and that plant process instrumentation j
may not accurately display accident behavior. He asked the staff to explain the importance of good simulator fidelity in relationship to the training of l
operators to mitigate severe accidents.
HUMAN PERFORMANCE PROGRAM PLAN Dr. Cecil Thomas, NRR i
Dr. Thomas introduced the Human Performance Program Plan (HPPP) by explaining the evolution of and the expected future coordination activities associated with the i
pl an.
He described the membership and interaction of the HPPP Coordination Committee.
Dr. Thomas explained that NRR, as an end user of human factors
- research, inspects or reviews licensee staffing, work hours, personnel qualifications, and training programs.
The Subcommittee Members and Dr. Thomas discussed root-cause analyses, corrective action programs, safety culture, usage of state of the art practices in the i
regulatory process, human system interface issues, and simulator fidelity. They also discussed International Atomic Energy Agency (IG) performance indicators l
andithe Institute Of Nuclear Power Operations (I'#0) training ' accreditation i
program.
. Discussions-of the HPPP included the need to develop a human performance model and program goals, assign priorities to HPPP sctivities, and apply the results of present activities to complete program goal.
l HUMAN FACTORS INFORMATION SYSTEM Ms. Mary Ann Biamonte, NRR r
Ms. Biamonte presented the origins, functions, and sources of data for the Human Factors Information System (HFIS).
She explained how the HFIS database was compiled and used to provide input to senior management meetings, and what the plans were for integrating the HFIS database with other databases. The Committee Members and the staff discussed the following issues:
the relationship between human factors, human performance, and human error; the relationship between HPPP and risk-informed, performance-based e
activities; the staff access to INPO reports; the interpretation of HFIS inspection report data; e
the coding of HFIS information; and j
the AE00 database.
\\
i Minutes: Human Factors Subcommittee i
September 20, 1996 2
HUMAN PEPF0AMANCE INSPECTION GUIDELINES Ms. Clare Goodman, NRR 5
Ms. Goodman presented the different inspection modules that included elements for assessing human performance. She explained how NRR was developing an inspection manual chapter to bring together different regulatory requirements and how an inspector would use the manual chapter. Ms. Goodman stated that NRR was updating l
selected inspection modules, developing new inspection modules, and finalizing technical support documents.
She explained how inspectors conduct human performance monitoring and post-event assessments.
Ms. Goodman explained the reasons for conducting "for-cause" training inspections.
l The Subconnittee Merbers and the staff discussed maintaining consistency with national and international sbdards, the conduct of control room observations, i
human factors inspections of norw.i and abnormal operating procedures, simulator i
fidelity, and the public availabiliti cf NRC letter reports.
They discussed i
j inspecting compliance with risk-infvmed, performance-based regulations and with prescriptive requirements.
HUMAN FACTORS RESEARCH Mr.-Franklin Coffman, RES Mr. Coffman summarized the staffing and experience level of the RES Human Factors j
Branch.
He presented recently completed human factor products, ongoing activities, and future plans.
The products included NUREGs and regulatory guides. The ongoing activities included operator performance in hybrid control 1
rooms, the Halden project, human-system interface studies, and plant staffing i
studies. The future plans included providing experience feedback, updating the L
root-cause investigation process, identifying organizational factor predictors, and integrating the recommendations from the National Academy of Science study 1
on digital I&C equipment into an industry workshop.
1 l
The Subcommittee Members and the staff discussed the following issues:
the availability of documents that provide a technical basis for NUREG i
e
- reports,
- ~
the process for assigning priorities to HPPP activities, 1
the performance test results of operators who worked 8 and 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> shifts, the collection of human performance data in support of regulatory decisions,
'the need for studying human error and the reason for errors of commission, the reason for researching man-machine interfaces, e
the modeling of human performance, and e
holding additional ACRS meetings to discuss work in progress.
j
m._
Minutes: Human Factors Subcommittee September 20, 1996 ADVANCED ALARN SYSTEMS AND INTERFACE MANAGEMENT Mr. Jerry Wachtel, RES l
Mr. Wachtel presented the background and rationale for developing revision 1 to NUREG-0700, " Human-System Interface Design Review Guideline."
He stated that identified gaps in NUREG-0700 include evaluation criteria for advanced alarm systems and for the effects 'of advanced control-display interface management tasks on crew work load and performance.
Mr. Wachtel explained the research l
. activities that are under way in each of the identified areas.
The Subcommittee Members and Mr. Wachtel discussed the use of human factors i
state-of-the-art processes in developing regulations and in encouraging licensees I
to develop better operating practices.
They discussed alarm overload, i
suppression of alarms, and the Department of Energy's development _of a criticality alarm system for high level radioactive materials.
Mr. Wachtel discussed his experiences related to the cultural differences between operators from other countries.
STUDY OF STAFFING LEVELS FOR ADVANCED REACTORS - Ms. Dolores Morisseau, RES Ms. Morisseau presented the background of the Halden project that evaluated the impact of advance passive plant designs on the staffing of control room crews, and on operator and team performance.
She described how the project was designed, the scenarios used, the crew configurations, and the data collection process.
She stated that the results demonstrated the sensitivity of. crew performance measures to changes in crew composition and control room automation.
Smaller crews exhibited good performance in advanced plant control rooms.
The Subcommittee Members and Ms. Morisseau discussed the modifications made to the Loviisa Nuclear Power Station training simulator to simulate a Westinghouse AP600 control room.
They discussed the feasibility of crew simulation techniques, the difficulty of duplicating the decision-making process in simulator exercises, the validity of data obtained from the tests, the modeling of task networks, simulator fidelity, situation awareness, and tne effect of different crew compositions.
FOLLOWUP ACTIONS The Subcommittee requested that the staff provide at a future meeting information concerning the following questions.
1 What are the staff plans for developing an HPPP activities roadmap, which-would be useful for allocating resources to, scheduling of, and understanding the relationship between the activities?
The activities delineated in the HPPP appear to be focused on reducing the
=
assumed risk-worth of human actions used in probabilistic risk assessments (PRA).
What is the risk-worth of human actions?
Why does the staff l
believe the risk-worth is too high and should be reduced?
l l
(
o 4
Minutes: Human Factors Subcommittee September 20, 1996 How does the staff set the priorities for the HPPP activities and what does the priority ranking mean?
How does the staff decide that an independent program element is required?
Why has the staff decided that data gathering should be separated from developing guidance and that the two activities should have different priorities?
What does the staff mean by " effective" and " adequate" as used in the i
objectives and goals in the HPPP? How does the staff know what must be i
done and when the goal or objective is achieved?
Should the staff be pushing licensees toward the state-of-the-art in human factors and human reliability rather than a proven adequate state?
Numerous human errors have resulted in the misadministration of medical treatments by licensees of the Office of Nuclear Material and Safeguards (NMSS). Why isn't NMSS as involved with human performance efforts as the other offices?
How does the staff plan to respond to the ACRS advice related to developing organization and management metrics, which correlate with risk or performance?
What are the technical bases for defining the staffing levels inside and outside of the main control room, and for developing guidance for assessing communication procedures?
What are the deficiencies or gaps in NUREG-07007 How are standards adopted by the staff formulated?
How does the staff assure that the standards are necessary and sufficient to meet regulatory needs?
The staff scheduled item 1.2.11 of the HPPP, " Develop Guidance for Computerized Job Performance Aids," to be completed "as technology is developed." What standards does the staff have for such aids that would foster the development of such technology? If the standards do not exist, what are the staff plans for developing such standards?
What is the staff approach to developing a performance-based fitness-for-duty criteria?
What is the staff approach to evaluating the task network model espoused by the Department of Defense, and how will the staff decide if the model is applicable and useful for regulatory needs?
l l
l d
Minutes: Human Factors Subcomittee September 20, 1996 How does the staff decide on the allocation of resources between human factor research and other research activities such as thermal hydraulic models?
How does the staff assure simulator fidelity?
How important is good fidelity to Emergency Operating Procedure training? What does the staff expect an operator to do if unexpected plant behavior occurs during a severe accident?
Dr. Power noted that several HPPP activities were projected to be complete in early 1997 and that the Subcomittee should plan to review the results of the activities.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS The Subcomittee recommended that the Full Comittee review and comment on the Human Performance Program Plan and the RES research program, after the Subcommitee meets with representatives of AE00 and NMSS concerning planned human factors activities and with the staff regarding the above questions.
BACKGROUND MATERIAL PROVIDED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE FOR THIS MEETING 1.
Memorandum dated June 1,1995, from Noel Dudley, ACRS Staff, to ACRS ibebers,
Subject:
Sumary of the Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee (NdRRC) I&C and Human Factors Subcomittee Meeting 2.
Memorandum dated July 12, 1996, from Noel Dudley, ACRS Staff, to ACRS
- Members,
Subject:
Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee (NSRRC) 1996 Meeting Concerning Human Factors 3.
Memorandum dated July 31, 1996, from Cecil Thomas, NRR, to John Larkins, ACRS Executive Director,
Subject:
Forwarding Human Performance Plan Revision 1 PRESENTATION SLIDES AND HAND 0UTS PROVIDED DURING THE MEETING The presentation slides and handouts used during the meeting are available in the ACRS office files ur as attachments to the printed transcript.
NOTE: Additional details of this meeting can be obtained from a transcript of this meeting available in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, (202) 634-3274, or can be purchased from Neal R. Gross and Company Incorporated, Court seHdsrs and Transcribers, 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 234-4433.
'