ML20155B820
| ML20155B820 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/31/1988 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8806130362 | |
| Download: ML20155B820 (83) | |
Text
- - - - - - - - -
?
5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
Title:
BRIEFING ON HUMAN FACTORS PROGRAM AND NRC VIEWS OF NAS RECOMMENDATIONS Location: ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND Date:
TUESDAY, MAY 31, 1988 Pages:
1-62 Ann Riley & Associates Court Reporters 1625 i Street, N.W., Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 8806130362 080531
.7 PDR
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held 5-31-88 i n the Commission's office at One on White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been rev'iewed, corrected or edited, and i t may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
9 6
y
.#,m-...
, - - - ~
--we
l i
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 BRIEFING ON HUMAN FACTORS PROGRAM AND NRC VIEWS OF 5
NAS RECOMMENDATIONS 6
7 PUBLIC MEETING 8
9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 One White Flint North 11 Rockville, Maryland 12 13 TUESDAY, MAY 31, 1988 14 15 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 16 notice, at 2 :00 p.m., the Honorable LANDO W.
ZECH, Chairman of 17 the commission, presiding.
18 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
19 LANDO W.
- ZECH, Chairman of the Commission 20 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Member of the Commission i
21 KENNETH CARR, Member of the commission
~
22 KENNETH ROGERS, Member of the Commission 23 24 25
2 1
STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
2 3
S.
CHILK s
4 G. ROE 5
W.
PARLER 6
F. COFFMAN 7
V. STELLO 8
B.
REGAN 9
H.
BECKJORD 10 11 12 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
13 14 D.
ROSS 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
..., _... ~....
_ ~ _. _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ -..,
3 1
?ROCEEDINGS 2
(2:00 p.m.)
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
r 4
The NRC determined upon reviewing the causes of the Three Mile 5
Island accident that human performance and human factors were 6
important contributors to the accident.
7 Since that time, the NRC has invested significant 8
resources in understanding and implementing requirements for 9
improved human factors in commercial nuclear power plants.
10 Control room designs have been reviewed and improved.
11 Emergency operating procedures have been evaluated and 12 improved.
Training has been enhanced.
13 Control room staffing requirements have been upgraded 14 and many more things have taken place in the field of human 15 factors.
16 Still human error contributes to about half of all 17 licensee event reports.
Operators, while dedicated, well 18 trained, and competent, continue, at least on some occasions, 19 to have trouble with procedures.
20 Control rooms still have some unnecessary annunciator 21 lights on during operations.
This places a burden on the 22 operators to account first of all for the reason that the lioht 23 is on and then to understand and know where the alternate 24 indicators are that would compensate for that light that is 25 operating abnormally.
4 1
The operators are, in any case, the first and the 2
last line of defense in the defense in-depth philosophy.
We 3
must do what we can to create the environment where operators 4
can and will take the appropriate action when it's needed, both 5
in routine operation and in off-normal situations.
6 Today we will hear from the Office of Regulatory 7
Research and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation about the 8
human factors activities at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
9 I understand we have slides that have been available 10 at the entrance to the r,oom.
Do any of my fellow Commissioners 11 have any opening remarks to make?
12 If not, Mr. Stello, you may proceed.
13 MR. STELLO:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll turn the 14 meeting over here very shortly to Harry Beckjord who has some 15 opening comments and we'll get on with the briefing.
16 I thought at the outset it's important to recognize 17 that while this afternoon you'll hear a great deal from 18 Research and some from.NR1, two offices not bere, AEOD and 19 NMSS.
20 I wouldn't want, because they're not up here at the 21 table, to suggest that those activities are limited to these
~
two offices.
They certainly are not.
22 23 We have been finding that a significant amount of the 24 data that's analyzed in AEOD show significant human involvement 25 in the LERs that are being analyzed, about 60 percent of them, l
5 1
we found are in one way or another a contribution of either 2
failure, inadequate training or procedures, or whatever.
3 I was impressed when the Academy briefed the 7-4 Commission that they emphasized it's time to get behind those 5
data, understand what the problems are, and see what we can do 6
about it, and we have begun.
7 There is much to be done.
I think we have, though, 8
made considerable progress in this area and are committed to do 9
a great deal more.
10 We have in the Office of NMSS, who is not here, a 11 proctram that is just getting under way.
As you recall, that 12 office has done not very much in the area, and they have hired 13 a specialist to help them form their program because we, too, 14 have found in the materials and licenses they are responsible 15 for, the areas where significant improvement again can be made 16 by application of human factors principals.
17 The staff is committed to undertake this broad 18 program.
The paper that we have sent to the Commission tries 19 to give at least a broad-brush treatment of the entire Agency 20 response, to lessons of TMI that says that we hadn't paid 21 adequate attention to the human side of the equation.
22 We are now, and we're even going to do more in the 23 future as you'll hear this a'fternoon.
With that brief 24 introduction, I'd like to turn to Mr. Beckjord who has some 25 opening comments and then we'll go through the briefing.
6 1
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Before we begin, let me just ask the 1
2 staff again that during the National Academy of Science 3
briefing on May 19th, we asked at that time the staff be
~~
4 prepared to comment on their recommendations.
5 I hope you're prepared to do that today and we'd 6
appreciate hearing your comments on those recommendations.
i 7
MR. STELLO:
We are and we will provide those 8
comments.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
You may 10 proceed, Mr. Beckjord.
11 MR. BECKJORD:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just had 12 two comments before Dr. Coffman carries on with the 13 presentations.
14 The first was on the May 19th report that you heard.
15 This report took a broad view of the role of human factors.in 16 the safe operation and management of nuclear plants and it 17 addressed its report to the NRC and the nuclear industry as a l
18 whole.
19 It also recommended that the NRC undertake a number 20 of the research projects that it has proposed.
In the May 23rd 21 paper, which you're going to hear the briefing on this 22 afternoon, we have pointed out the projects which we think it's 23 appropriate for the NRC to undertake.
24 I just wanted to say that in total there were 44 25 recommendations.
These were covered in the May 23rd document, l
l 7
1 but we won't have time to go through all of them in detail this 2
afternoon at this presentation.
But Mr. Coffman will describe 3
or respond with a number of specific examples.
r 4
Secondly, I wanted to say that the Electric Power 5
Research Institute and the Institute of Nuclear Power 6
Operations have sent written comments on the recommendations of 7
the National Research Council Committee on Human Factors.
8 The Research Office plans to meet with EPRI, with 9
INPO, and also with NUMARC in June to review both the Committee 10 report and also the Research Office human factors plan.
11 And I expect to discuss with them at that meeting the 12 possibilities for cooperative and coordinated efforts in human 13 factors research.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you very much.
You 15 may proceed.
16 (Slide.)
17 MR. COFFMAN:
As Vic Stello mentioned, human factors 18 regulatory research is being performed as part of the Agency's 19 overall human factors activities.
20
'a first this afternoon I'll introduce the remaining 21 two presentations as far as the Agency's overall human factors 22 activities and then I'll cover the RES presentation.
23 (Slide.)
24 MR. COFFMAN:
The second viewgraph you will see some 25 of AEOD's and NMSS's, a summary of their activities.
AEOD's
8 1
reviews of operating experience include monitoring of licensee 2
event reports and performance indicators and activation of the 3
incident investigation and diagnostic evaluation teams and 4
managing the Technical Training Center.
5 NMSS is in the process of prioritizing its human 6
factors needs.
Some example priority areas are medical mis-7 administrations and radiography safety.
8 (Slide.]
9 MR. COFFMAN:
On the next viewgraph you see NRR and 10 RES listed.
NRR has several activities underway, both at 11 Headquarters and in the regions, and Jack Roe will present 12 NRR's activities immediately following the RES presentation.
13 RES does research both to support regulatory 14 decisions and to anticipate human factors developments that are 15 potentially safety significant.
16 (Slide.)
17 MR. COFFMAN:
On the next viewgraph, which is number 18 four, you will see that the Agency's resources associated with 19 human factors activity for fiscal years '88 and
'89.
The 20 resources are shown both in units of million dollars and FTE.
21 The bulk of the NRR personnel associated with human 22 factors activities arc in the regions.
They are involved with 23 operator examinations, licensing and requalification.
24 Between about 55 percent and 60 percent of the total 25 number of Agency personnel working on human factors are
9 1
involved in operator examinations, licensing and 2
requalification.
3 The Office of Research funding on human factors 4
consists of a little more than 40 percent of the Agency's total 5
funding on human factors.
6 (Slide.]
7 MR. COFFMAN:
On the next viewgraph, which is number 8
five, my purpose in the RES presentation today is briefly to 9
review the historical highlights to indicate the coordination 10 with user offices and to summarize both the program plan and 11 the resources being used to service the human factors 12 regulatory research plan.
13 And as was mentioned when Dr. Neville Moray, Chairman 14 of the NAS Panel, summarized the NAS report on May 19th, we 15 have responded with enclosure two to the Commission paper to 16 SECY 88-141, and it provides an item by item description of our 17 use of the NAS Panel's recommendations.
l 18 I do not plan to repeat all the details here although 19 I will summarize the NAS Panel's recommendations and our use of 20 them.
21 (Slide.)
22 MR. COFFMAN:
On the next viewgraph, by way of 23 historical highlights, human factors in commercial nuclear 24 power receive noticeable emphasis first in 1976, when the 25 reactor safety study, WASH-14dO, systematically estimated the
10 1
degree to which humans could impact safe operation.
2 And in 1979, the TMI action items included such 3
things as the detailed control room design reviews, emergency 4
operating procedures, and the safety parameter display systems.
5 From 1981 to 1985, the research program in human 6
factors completed most of its tasks.
The remaining tasks were 7
incorporated into ongoing programs.
8 A couple of considerations have led to the 9
revitalizing of human factors research as specific needs became 10 evident, and the Chairman has already mentioned some of these.
11 Although there are safety benefits that have already 12 accrued from human factors work within the Agency, there 13 remains this large fraction of reportable events that continue 14 to be attributed to human error.
15 In addition, operator errors of omission as assessed 16 by PRAs were not only shown to be significant, but the measures 17 themselves of operator errors are difficult.
18 (Slide.]
19 MR. COFFMAN:
The next viewgraph is intended to 20 itemize our coordination.
One of our major assignments since 21 the 1987 reorganization was to revitalize human factors 22 regulatory research.
23 To revitalize this research, we have coordinated, 24 restructured and re-focused tiie currently needed research 25 tasks.
11 1
In addition, we're also thinking how to package for 2
use the research products.
That is, how to make the research 3
products friendly to the users.
4 We requested and reviewed user needs from the other 5
offices.
We considered ongoing research, we considered past O
6 accomplishments, and we considered all the NAS Panel's c
7 recommendations by way of defining the currently needed 8
research projects.
9 Part of that process, similar needs were integrated 10 into one project and there was intense coordination among the 11 user offices.
12 We will continue that intense coordination, both 13 informally through frequent interactions and formally through 14 buth division level and branch level research review groups.
15 The human factors regulatory research plan will be 16 updated periodically as projects are completed, as user needs 17 are modified, and as new research needs are defined.
18 (Slide.)
19 MR. COFFMAN:
Go to the next viewgraph.
It's a brief 20 summary of the user needs.
NRR in this viewgraph 8-A, NRR's 21 needs include research into the influences of organization and i
~
22 management practices on safe operations.
23 It includes human reliability assessment measures and 24 root-cause determination.
It includes the impacts, both j
i 25 beneficial and detrimental, of advanced technology such as
12 1
expert systems and improved fault detection, as was mentioned 2
earlier.
3 Team performance measures are included, possibly with f_
4 the use of simulators and procedures and training effectiveness 5
measures are included, including those things for extreme 6
environments.
7 (Slide.]
8 MR. COFFMAN:
On the next viewgraph, which is 8-B, 9
NMSS's research, as I mentioned, their needs are in the process 10 of being defined and prioritized.
11 (Slide.)
12 MR. COFFMAN:
The next viewgraph, which is 9-A, i
13 AEOD's research needr, included an indicator for monitoring 14 cognitive error, mar: aging impact on safe operations, and 15 reliable performance indicators of maintenance program and 16 training program effectiveness.
17 (Slide.)
18 MR. COFFMAN:
Then on the next viewgraph, 9-B, 19 Research's needs center around the review measures for advanced 20 control rooms, the human factors of accident management, and 21 reliable measures of human error.
~
22 (Slide.)
23 MR. COFFMAN:
On the next viewgraph, which is number 24 10, the objective of the research itself is to improve our 25 understanding of the causes of human error for the purpose of
13 1
reducing its incidence, and to provide the technical basis for 2
support of requirements, recommendations, and guidance.
3 The research involves hardware and humans and their 4
interactions in a total systems approach.
The objective of the 5
plan is to identify the major areas of human factors research.
6 The plan identifies both near-term research to 7
support regulatory decisions, which include such items as 8
generic issues, human factors generic issues, and long-term 9
research to anticipate human factors developments that are 10 potentially safety significant.
11 We've broken the plan into five research areas, which 12 is shown in viewgraph number 11.
13 (Slide.)
14 MR. COFFMAN:
Human performance research is to model 15 the factor shaping human performance.
Human reliability 16 assessment research is to assess the human error rates using 17 credible data.
18 Man-machine research is to assure that this interface 19 communicates clearly and compatibly as needed for safe 20 operations.
21 Procedures research is to assure the reliability of
~
22 rule-based actions.
That is, to minimize procedural errors.
23 Qualifications research is to assure the match'ing of the innate 24 human capabilities with the system's task requirements.
25 Training research is to assure the matching of the
14 1
required skill levels with the level of training received and 2
to maintain it both for individuals and for teams.
3 Organization and management research is to measure, 4
model, and monitor the influences of supervisory and 5
organizational practices on safe operation.
6 Although maintenance is not identified as a separate 7
area, maintenance is addressed throughout these five areas.
8 The details of these five areas and their three dozen contracts 9
are too much to cover now, but they are described in detail in 10 Enc 1csure 1 to the SECY paper.
11 But as an example of one of these areas, let me 12 quickly summarize one which is the man-machine interface.
13 Here, the objective is to assure that the interface 14 communicates clearly and compatibly as needed for safe 15 operations.
16 So the purpose involves assuring that both we have 17 identified those factors that garble the interface and that we 18 determine what improvements can be made.
19 By way of ongoing projects, we're looking at the need 20 to identify whether it should be a human factors review for 21 local control stations since the detailed control room design 22 reviews cover the central control rooms.
23 Another ongoing project is to determine if the 24 guidance for human factors of control -- what should be the 25 guidance for human factors review of the control rooms on new
~
15 1
plants.
2 Another area was mentioned earlier also, the 3
annunciators, human factors generic issue 5.2 where the 4
objective is to identify the need for criteria and the criteria 5
for the review of control room board annunciators.
6 As far as planned research in this area of man-7 machine interface, we're looking at the impact of high 8
technology on control room operations.
9 One question is to identify if mixing old and new 10 controls adversely impacts operator performance.
Another area 11 of planned research is computer classification, where the 12 question is should there be different classes of computers with 13 different requirements based upon their functional use and 14 their potential impact on safe operations.
15 Another planned area is expert systems verification 16 and validation where the question is can we identify the review 17 criteria for verification and validation of expert systems.
18 A key ingredient to the use of expert systems is 19 being able to quickly determine how the software arrived at its 20 recommendation.
21 That is, the expert system must be a transparent box 22 and none other than a black box.
Another area of planned 23 research is in reliance on SPDS, whether -- or potentially will 24 the operators overly or excessively rely upon the SPDS rather 25 than the Class 1-E control board instruments that have met Reg
.~
16 1
Guide 1.97.
2 In support of a lot of this work in man-machine 3
interface, we are using the Halden Project.
The Halden Project 4
is a valuable resource.
It uses a four-loop PWR simulator for 5
research and experimentation.
6 The Project also includes a man-machine laboratory 7
with experience in the developing and testing of advanced 8
instrumentation.
9 The Project uses reactor operators in the research.
10 Similar facilities are not currently available in the U.S.
11 Through the Halden Project we are able to participate with 12 worldwide experts in the identification and solutions of man-13 machine interface problems.
14 We expect to come out of Halden knowledge on the uso l
15 of expert systems as operator aids, review criteria for 16 advanced instrumentation, information on computer based 17 procedures, simulator data on operator performance for the i
18 purpose of human reliability assessment, and guidelines on
~
19 verification and validation of software.
20 If I could go the next viewgraph.
21
[ Slide.)
22 MR. POFFMAN:
It addresses resources.
Currently 23 there are eighe p.afessionals directing human factors research.
24 This staff will be completely adequate when we fill an existing 25 vacancy.
o 17 i
1 The staff is multi-disciplinary.
The current' staff 2
is entirely composed of senior professionals including internationallyrecognihIdexpertsinman-machineinterface
[
3
?
4 designs, cognition modeling, human, reliability assessment, and f: 1
/
5 simulators, z
/
6 These professionals'are qualified to direct 7
particular areas of human factors research both by the formal i
D c
8 training and by applied e:fperience.
.i '
t
{
9 By form'al training, there are three doctorates awd
'j i
10 ten masters.
Every profescional has at least one mast'ers
'l t
11 degree.
12 Every discipline involved has at least one masters 13 degree.
We are heaviest in psychology with one Ph.D.,
four
(
14 masters, and four %achelors.
15 Although applied experience can replace the 16 classroom, there's no substitute for the experience itself, 17 There is a minimum o't 11 years applied experience in any single 18 discipline within the human factors technology.
19 The total applied experience is two-staff centuries.
20 over 60 percent of the experience is in human factors and 21 engineering psychology.
[
22 When it comes to contracting, we are particularly I
23 1 coking for well-qualified professionals that are experienced 24 both in human factors and in other disciplines.
25 The fiscal '88 contracts are allocated about 30
/,-
-,,.,.--,--,n.--
-w,
-c-
\\
d,I s
18
', \\
1 percent to national labs, 10 percent to universities, 15 2
percent to consultants, and 25 percent to international 3
agreements, and we expect that the university and consultant s
3 4
percentages will be increasing.
5 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Could you give me those ntabers 6
again, please?
7 MR. COFFMAN:
Yes, sir.
It's 50 percent to national 8
laboratories, 15 percent to consultants, 25 pr:rcont to 9
international agreements.
Did I miss one?
10 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Universities.
b Tenpercenttouniversities.[
l 11 MR. COFFMAN:
n i
\\
12 (Slide.)
/(s' 13 MR. COFFMAN:
On the 13th viewgraph, you'll see the 14 fiscal '88 and '89 budget for human factors research as it is 15 distributed by percentages.
The total it.i in million dolla:M.
.t 6 The past funding for human factors research has l
17 averaged about $2.3 million.
During most of the NAS studies, 18 the NAS Panel's study, human factors research funding was less 19 than $1 million and was entirely dedicated to human error and 20 human reliability assessment.
21 The five-year plan would project a stabilized budget 1
22 at a funding level somewhere between about $7 and'$8 million.
23 But the allocation of the funds will vary annually'to' respond 24 to defined user needs.
25 I'd like to go to the NAS --
r lJ
p y
19 i
1 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Wsit. 'g Before you go away from that g
1 If I recall, didn'tfDr. horay say that one of his 2
one.
3 recommendations was tha't we didn't spend anything on that first l
j' 4
item?
Is that what he asid?
5 MR. COFFMAN:
Tliair recommendation was geared toward f
4 3
6 not spending additional funds on subjective, enhancing 7
subjective estimates"forl human reliability assessments.
8 Not expansking the subjective aspect because that's 9
all it appears to be doing.
s; 10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Yes.
What is in that first item,
'11 human performance?
Isn't that a fair atrount of subjective r
12 effort?
, MR. COFFMAN:
The -- no, I wouldn't call it 13 I
14
/
subjective effort.
Within that is some work on cognition b l5 modeling which is an attempt to take it; out of a process where
/
16 the analyst looks up a descript.Jon of a tas.k and tries to match 17 what the estimated error rate for that task is with the task he's got at hand.
/
18 4
s 19 Here, in this work, we're looking to model the 70 cognitive process in repeatable ways that can be tested and 21 then folded into reliability assessments.
~
22 In addition, there is work on maint.e.iance, simulating 22 mainteranc/ errors' and what the influences of changes in
^
\\
1 j 24 maintenance practice has on maintennce.
)
t 25 Ca'OIBMAN ZECH:
So what you're saying is that Dr.
(
o
,b i
20 1
Moray suggested we don't spend anything in this area on the 2
theoretical or the subjective part of it, but we go ahead on 3
the more practical or the more usable type perfocmance that 4
would be in the human factors.
5 Is that the way you understand it?
6 MR. COFFMAN:
Yes, sir.
If I might have the liberty 7
to paraphrase a little.
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Go right ahead.
9 MR. COFFMAN:
In the past, there has been a process 10 used, referred to as the third process, that has been primarily 11 one where experts have gotten together and tried to define 12 groups of tasks and then indicate what the error rate is 13 associated with that task.
14 And so it becomes one of subjective judgment among 15 experts.
In contrast, what we're doing is trying to model the 16 process and model it in a way that it can be measured and the 17 measurements can be repeated.
18 So we're moving away from subjective estimates of 19 human error rates into --
20 COMMISSIONER CARR:
What kind of data bank are you 21 using?
22 MR. COFFMAN:
The data bank, we're trying to expand 23 the data bank through the use of simulatorr and we're trying to 24 work with EPRI who has done an extensive amount of research in I
l 25 this area and they have extensive data.
l
.i
21 1
We also have the work going on at Halden where we 2
expect to obtain some information there.
3 COMMISSIONER CARR:
This is not a data-gathering 4
expenditare.
It's just using current data that's already 5
available.
6 MR. COFFMAN:
This is a modeling and data' combination 7
and some of the data that is there, data takes different forms, 8
the data that is there is one of aggregated subjective 9
judgment.
10 What we're lcoking for is modeling and the collecting 11 of objective repeatable observations.
We don't think that 12 we're repeating the error that the NAS pointed out.
Not the 13 error, but just going back and doing old work on subjective 14 estimates of error rates.
15 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, if I could interject, my 16 understanding of what the recommendation was was that, rather 17 than try to accumulate more information and more data on 18 frequency of errors and assigning numerical values to frequency t
19 of errors, that the research should be directed more to the 20 root cause of the error.
I I
l 21 What's the basic origin of the error, and therefore l
22 what can one do to begin to change those frequencies, rather 1
23 than the further collection of average frequenci'es of error, 24 and using that data for PRAs or whatever.
25 And my understanding of his recommendation was to not
22 1
do that, t't, rather, to try to get at the root cause of an 2
error and to find what steps might be taken to help to prevent 3
errors from occurring, rather than to simply characterize the 4
average frequency, the pure frequency of their occurrence when 5
you haven't done anything.
6 Does that relate somewhat?
7 MR. COFFMAN:
Yes.
That's right.
And in modeling, I 8
didn't use the word of determining the cause, but in modeling 9
that's exactly what you're doing.
You're trying to determine 10 those factors in a measurable way that are the cause of these 11 errors, error rates.
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, if I may just add one thought 13 to this, too.
My understanding of what he told us was that we 14 had done enough studying of theoretical business in this area 15 and that, perhaps, we ought to get into the more practical area 16 of root causes and the things that are more real to the 17 operators.
18 At least that was the way I understood him to say, I
19 that we shouldn't spend any more money on a rather theoretical, 1
20 subjective approach, but we should get on with doing something 21 that would be more practical.
22 Now, did you understand that?
23 MR. COFFMAN:
Yes.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
And that would be root 25 causes that Commisslor.er Rogers is pointing out, also.
In
- -.. - - - - -. -.-- -_ ~
- l
5 23 1
other words, we want to get our hands ditty in this thing, and 2
get some operators involved in it and find out what we really 3
can do to help them.
4 And they're the ones that can probably tell us better 5
than anybody else, ac far as I'm concerned.
Certainly, they 6
should be involved, and I think that was what he was saying.
7 I'd try to link that up, because it seemed to me that 8
was a rather important observation on the part of somebody who 9
had looked at it as carefully as he had,.to recognize we 10 shouldn't be spending a lot of money on the rather ethereal, 11 theoretical, subjective type things that have been fairly well 12 studied.
13 But we should focus our efforts on something that 14 would be more practical.
Or, at least, that's what I felt he J
15 said.
Do you agree with that?
16 MR. COFFMAN:
Yes.
We agree with it in a practical 17 sense, in that this area includes work on event reporting and 18 investigation of events that have occurred.
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
And we don't just study it and get a I
20 lot of data and put it on the shelf.
But we try to apply it 21 and do something for the operators and the maintenance people
~
22 and others, the human factor, the people who use the results of 23 this effort.
24 I like that approach that he had, and at least that's 25 what I thought he was saying.
I hope that's what our research
24 1
program will be doing, too.
2 MR. COFFMAN:
Dr. Moray's panel also, in fact, 3
underscored one of the things that we're doing in this area 4
with the maintenance.
It involves going out to the plants ano, 5
in fact, involving operators in the development of models.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Excellent.
7 (Slide.]
8 MR. COFFMAN:
Let's see.
I think I'm on the 13th 9
viewgraph.
I guess I'm going over the NAS recommendations.
10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Before you leave the budget, 11 could you say just what the level of effort is at the Holden 12 Project, the NRC's part of it, and how big those studies are 13 that are going on there?
14 I know they may be spending pounds and we're spending 15 dollars, but roughly what percentage of their effort is 16 supported by NRC and what does that amount to in dollars?
17 MR. COFFMAN:
We support 7 percent of the total i
18 Holden Project, and it amounts to, as far as human factors i
~
19 research, it amounts to $560,000 per year for us over a three-l 20 year period.
)
21 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Do we have a say in what the
~
22 program consists of over there?
23 MR. COFFMAN:
Yes, sir.
We have at two levels.
At a 24 technical level and at a director level, we have participation 25 in the project, and as a Board member.
25 1
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Could you go back to the previous 2
slide for just a minute, please?
3 I wanted to ask you a question on procedures.
I 4
think you had procedures listed there in the middle.
What 5
research do we need to do in procedures?
6 What I'd like to know is how will it help the 7
operators?
Not only the operators, but the maintenance, 8
surveillance, and testing people at our power plants.
9 I'd just be interested in what kind of research you 10 have in mind concerning procedures.
11 MR. COFFMAN:
By way of on-going research and 12 procedures, there is a human factors generic issue, 4.4, where 13 the question is should we upgrade other procedures, other than 14 the emergency operating procedures.
15 Because, as we look at emergency operating procedures 16 reported events, it seems like the other procedures have a role 17 in some of these reported events.
So, one of the on-going 18 efforts we have is to determine --
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
You mean like procedures for 20 conducting surveillance or testing and things like that?
21 MR. COFFMAN:
What we had in mind in this was more 22 for normal and abnormal operating procedures.
Maintenance is 23 being addressed separately from the one project.
But that's 24 not all the projects going on in procedures.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, I' guess I'm still trying to
26 1
come down to the nuts and bolts, though, at the practical 2
factor, the human factors and make it practical, and say:
All 3
right.
How would procedures, this research money, how will it 4
really help the operators and those maintenance people, 5
surveillance people, testing people?
6 How will it really help them perform better, and will 7
it preclude errors in the future?
In other words, what kind of 8
procedural research do you intend to do that will be practical?
9 MR. COFFMAN:
Let me give you an answer.
It may take 10 me a second here.
11 We have this work going on in the operating 12 procedures.
But, then, in addition, we're looking, as a 13 Chernobyl follow-up item, we're looking at procedural 14 violations.
15 What causes humans to violate procedures?
And that's 16 some on going research that we plan, and it would include any j
i 17 procedures.
18 But the way we speak to the operators, one way we 19 speak to operators is through rule-making.
And there is a 20 maintenance rule-making underway you're aware of, and our 21 branch is actively participating in that.
22 So, as far as influencing the instructions or 23 guidance to the operators on maintenance, it would take place 24 through that channel.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, let me just give you an
27 1
examples.
Perhaps whr.t I'm thinking about, maybe, it would be 2
a little easier way to answer my question, which is that I'm 3
trying to see where we're going to get something practical, 4
hands-on. out of this research effort in the case of 5
procedures.
6 One thing I have in mind would be, how about the flow 7
charts in the control rooms that are being used in some plants 8
now?
They take their procedures and they convert them to flow 9
charts.
You know what I mean.
It's a logic diagram.
They're 10 in use in many places that I've seen.
11 Now, to me, that helps.
It takes this book of 12 emergency operating procedures, that's rather clumsy to use, 13 and puts it in a practical chart you can use.
Some of them, I 14 will admit, are overdone a bit, because it gets so you can 15 hardly read them.
But they should get them --
16 And human factors research, I think, could contribute 17 to this.
How can you make procedures in another form that are
'a very useful to the operators in a real emergency?
19 In other words, when you have an emergency situation, 20 the operators are very busy, and they're trying to do things to 21 control the plant.
But one of the senior operators in the
~
22 control room has the responsibility of making sure they do the 23 right thing and follow those procedures.
24 And he uses the book and calls out procedures, and 25 they call back and respond whether they've shut the pump off or 9
g y
wi.w---
9
'-c' g
28 1
whatever they might be doing.
Whatever the action is that's-2 called for.
3 But they've taken those books.and they've put those 4
procedures on one big flow chart.
That makes sense to me, 5
because, in the heat of kind of an emergency situation, it's 6
easier to look and follow that diagram and check things off 7
with a pencil that could indicate you've done that and that, 8
and it gives you kind of a record of what you've done, too.
9 That's the kind of practical procedural effort that I 10 would think might be helpful in the human factors program, and 11 the research people could, I believe, make a contribution in 12 that area.
I give you that as an example that I think would be 13 useful in the procedural area.
14 Then, my question really is, are you looking into 15 those kinds of things?
16 MR. COFFMAN:
Let me take the aspect of procedures 17 that we are looking into, and that's in accident management.
18 But when it comes to the more normal procedures, I think that's
~
19 more typically an area that maybe NRR would like to address.
20 But as far as accidents go, in contrast with 21 maintenance procedures, we are looking at operator aids, not
~
22 just the format of the procedures, but operator aids and 23 possibly the use of expert systems.
24 This is planned work.
The only thing we have on-25 going at this point in research is the other procedures.
29 1
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, we could talk to NRR in a 2
minute.
But my only point is that in the research area, if 3
you're spending a pretty good part of the budget -- 18 percent 4
in '89 is a pretty good part, I think, on procedures -- I would i
5 hope it would be oriented to what can we do to help the 6
operators and prevent them from making mistakes.
7 I mean not just control operators, but maintenance 8
people, surveillance people, testing people, and so forth, 9
That procedural effort in research, I believe, should be 10 oriented toward some practical accomplishments in performance 11 of all those operators.
12 And that's my point.
I hope our research program is 13 going there, rather than going off in some theoretical 14 direction that may not really end up with a product for the 15 sperators.
16 MR. COFFMAN:
One of the outcomes of the Holden work 17 is --
Yes, sir?
18 MR. ROSS:
I was going to pick up on --
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, why don't you identify yourself 20 for the reporter?
21 MR. ROSS:
D.
F. Ross, Office of Research.
I think 22 we're doing something very practical along these lines at the 23 Holden Project.
24 We just finished some work where we had a sample of i
25 18 operators that were divided into three groups of six.
And i
30 1
we had operator aids in the way of different forms of computers 2
that would assist these people during real transients that are 3
simulated.
4 Each group was given a different type of computer-
)
5 based aid, and this aid would tell him what to do and perhaps 6
what not to do during typical transients, like loss of feed 7
water and so on.
8 We then evaluate how well the group of six would 9
respond to transi6nts, how many mistakes they would make, how 10 fast they would do something right.
And, then, based on that, 11 try to come to some conclusion whether computer-aided systems 12 might be of some quantifiable benefit.
13 And the results of this experiment, which is just 14 completed, answered, I think, pretty conclusively, yes.
They 15 make fewer mistakes if they have the right type of computer l
16 graphics, say, with colors.
Red is bad.
Red is poor.
The 17 value is closed.
The pump is not running.
18 I think, as we proceed into accident management, 19 we'll find this type of hands-on data with operators fresh from 20 the reactor next door to be very useful to us when we try to 21 decide should our reactors have these aids and, if so, how 22 should we regulate it, how should we specify our performance 23 requirements, and so on.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Okay.
I agree.
That's a good 25 example of procedural research that would be of a practical i
31 1
value.
I appreciate that.
Thank you.
2 All right.
Can we proceed?
3 (Slide.)
i 4
MR. COFFMAN:
I think we're at 14.
NAS employed 5
these experts in behavioral and social sciences and nuclear 6
physics and plant operations to identify areas that have not 7
received adequate attention and to provide guidance for the 8
human factors research.
9 This 14th viewgraph lists some key words from the NAS 10 panels, broad recommendations to facilitate the management and 11 use of human factors research.
12 (Slide.)
13 The next viewgraph, 15, lists the key --
14 MR. STELLO:
Frank, before you leave that, I remember 15 one particular recommendation that we had with respect to 16 availability of simulators to do their research.
They said 17 that they had a problem.
18 We, now, very shortly will have three simulators
)
19 available to us from Chattanooga, where, if there is a need or 20 commitment, I'm sure now there will be no problem in getting 21 available time to do whatever research they want to do in 22 universities and elsewhere.
23 So, I don't believe that would be a problem at all in 24 the future.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Very good.
. _ _,. ~. _. _..,. _
32 1
(Slide.]
2 MR. COFFMAN:
There were seme more specific 3
recommendations and these specific recommendations were to be
~
4 investigated both by the NRC and the rest of the nuclear 5
community.
6 (Slide.)
7 MR. COFFMAN:
On the 16th viuwgraph are how we have 8
outlined our response to our use of the panel's 9
recommendations.
Enclosure two as mentioned provides an item 10 by item description of our use, but our focus was in 11 revitalizing human factors regulatory research, so we were 12 considering past accomplishments, what was already reality, 13 ongoing research and all these recommendations.
14 The majority of the panel's recommendations coincided 15 with user needs.
Most of the recommendations coincided with 16 ongoing programs.
There were these few, as Dr. Beckjord had 17 mentioned, there were 44 more specific recommendations and 18 there were nine of them where there is no action planned at 19 this time.
20 We will be revisiting these recommendations as we 21 continue to interact with the regulatory users and the industry 22 groups.
Since the panel's recommendations were addressed to l
23 the entire nuclear community, we requested that NUMARC, EPRI 24 and INPO review the report for comments and for areas they may 25 wish to research alone or through cooperative research, 1
, ~. _ _ -. _
33 1
If you would like me to cover a couple of examples of 2
the areas that we have no actual plan at this time, I can do 3
that.
A 4
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Why don't you do that quickly.
5 MR. COFFMAN:
One of the reccamendations suggest we 6
create a national research facility for the study of human 7
factors and our recconse is essentially that research currently 8
funds the Halden project and we are in addition exploring joint 9
research with EPRI and we are exploring coordinated research 10 with INPO, so we did not feel at this time that it was worth 11 the initiative to establish a national researth facility.
12 Another recommendation was NAS suggeuted that we 13 ddentify applications of software psychology literature in the 14 development of nuclear power plant computer programs.
The NRC i
15 does regulate safety related functions and in special 16 circumstances, we do look at the software.
An example would be 17 the SPDS.
We feel this is more effectively addrcssed by EPRI, 18 possibly EPRI, because they are the ones that in fact developed 19 the software.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Is the staff prepared to give the 21 Commission a summary of the recommendations from the NAS report
~
22 and your recommended actions?
23 MR. STELLO:
Yes.
Table 1 of the report to the 24 Commission goes through it item by item, recommendation by
)
i 25 recommendation.
1
,--n e
,-,,y v-r----m
-ge
,,. - - +- - -
.,ee,
,w"--w v,,
,,-r
34 1
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Are these additional things that we 2
are hearing now?
Is it right from the report?
1 3
MR. COFFMAN:
Right from the report.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
That's fine.
5 MR. COFFMAN:
If you look in that table, I think they 6
are numbered.
7 COMMISSIONER CARR:
For instance, your number three 8
said they would like to have access to facilities such as 9
simulators.
In your response, you don't mention simulator 10 access at all and the bottom line says we aren't going to 11 establish a national research facility and there is no mention 12 of providing access to simulators for those people.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Mr. Stello says -- I think you are 14 going to get simulator support for them.
15 MR. STELLO:
Yes, through AEOD, through Chattanooga 16 Center, we have three simulators down there and to the extent 17 there is a need for any further research.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
That is a little different than what 19 you have told us.
20 COMMISSIONER CARR:
This is not our guys researching.
21 This is providing access to simulators for behavioral science 22 research?
23 MR. STELLO:
That's correct.
24 COMMISSIONER CARR:
It is outside of research.
25 MR. STELLO:
That's correct.
-y e
e e.
e
,,e,
,,, -~,
w ~
e-n
35 1
COMMISSIONER CARR:
The response doesn't indicate 1
2 that we are going to do that.
I'm glad to hear you are going 3
to do that.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Also, my point is that there are 5
other things that you have developed since you have written 6
that, that are at variance and perhaps we should be aware of 7
that.
8 MR. CARR:
There is also an indication that peer 9
review is useful, but at some stage.
I don't know when you're 10 going to bring that peer review in.
You just agree that it's a 11 good idea, but there's not a committment to bring peer review 12 in.
13 MR. COFFMAN:
If I might address first, the 14 simulator.
Yes, Recommendation 3 says that simulators should 15 have access to simulators.
1G MR. CARR:
Not us, them.
17 MR. COFFMAN:
Well, yes, that's true.
18 MR. COFFMAN:
We've got access.
Their beef was that 19 they don't have it and therefore, they can't help us.
20 MR. COFFMAN:
Okay, I misunderstood.
Your second 21 question?
~
22 MR. CARR:
Was on peer review -- it kind of leaves 23 it; yes, it's a good idea, but we'll bring it in at some stage, 24 MR. COFFMAN:
What we do on peer review is, from the i
i 25 very beginning, we're interacting with the user
.fices for the
36 i
1 purposes of defining what the user needs are and that is our 2
primary focus.
3 MR. CARR:
I would propose that the users are not 4
peers.
We're talking about human factors peers, I assume.
I 5
start looking at the research that you're doing and deciding 6
whether that's the right research, rather than the user.
I may 7
be wrong if I --
8 MR. COFFMAN:
No, sir.
I was just outlining the 9
process, but let me just pick on one aspect of the process, 10 which again the NAS report endorses.
In the developing of the 11 cognitive model work and the MAPS work, we did invoke comments 12 by peers, brainstorming by a group under contract for the 13 purpose of establishing the best way to go about conducting the 14 research.
15 I think if you look at it far enough and try to 16 compare word-for-word, the NAS report and the NRC response, at 17 some point you could find what appear to be disconnects.
I 18 think you may be down to the point of style almost.
I think 19 the intent is, there may be even in some of these areas that 20 we've listed as no action; we have taken some action.
It just 21 may not have gone far enough to call it complete action.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
If there are any differences that you 23 develop during the course of your work that would make your 24 response need a clarification, I hope you'll give it to us.
1 25 That's what we want to know, because it looks like there may be
37 1
a couple areas where you've been able to do something that the 2
report does not indicate that you were able to do, specifically 3
in tne area of simulators.
4 If that's the case, then we would appreciate your S
updating the Commission on that.
All right?
May we proceed?
6 MR. COFFMAN:
Just to try and wrap up what I was 7
giving you.
It was coming out of the table in the response and 8
I was not adding any new items.
I was just addressing those 9
items where we had no action at this time.
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I understand.
Let's proceed.
11 MR. COFFMAN:
I think that completes the agenda for 12 the RES presentction, which was to summarize historical 13 highlights; to show the coordination with user offices and to 14 describe the regulatory research plan and then how we use the 15 NAS panel's recommendation.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you very much.
17 MR. ROE:
Sir, the Nuclear Reactor Regulation human 18 factors program is one that is also multi-disciplinary.
It's 19 broad and covers not only the headquarters, but also the 20 regions and various programs, not only in operator licensing, 21 but in our inspection of emergency operating procedures and our 22 inspections associated with the man / machine interface, such as 23 the safety parameter display system, the detailed control room 24 design and review and also the assessment inspection of 25 training programs for the licensed utilities.
38 1
In addition, the NRR program supports other offices 2
and the diagnostic erforts of AEOD.
Our particular program is 3
also in evolution.
It is evolving from licensing reviews to 4
one of operational safety assessments.
Today, most of our 5
effort is in the field at the reactor sites.
6 Bill Regan, who's the Chief of the Human Factors 7
Assessment Branch, will discuss many of our programs.
We 8
recently briefed the Commission on operator licensing, so we 9
will not re-address that today.
In addition, you've just 10 brought up the aspect of procedures.
We really have four 11 objectives for our program, from the research.
12 The first one is with respect to emergency operating 13 procedures, the secure accident management; we are interested 14 in enhancing those documents, those procedures, those 15 approaches which exist today in the facilities.
Bill Will talk 16 a little bit about what we found EOP inspections to date.
17 one of the enhancements we're interested in, is being 18 sure that those flow charts are properly used and assist the 19 operators in carrying out their jobs, instead of are a 20 liability in carrying out their jobs.
21 The second thing is, we're interested in these types 22 of procedures -- emergency procedures -- that we look to the 23 future.
The technologies that are available to date, are 24 coming available tomorrow to assist the operators in performing 25 their jobs.
For example, it may be useful to look at the
)
39 1
possibility of having emergency operating procedures, that 2
there's text on one side of a split CRT screen and there's 3
schematics on the other side to really help them do the job.
4 Third is, that we're interested in looking at taking 5
the logical approach that's been taken in the EOP's, into other 6
types of procedures, such as the abnormal, transient and normal 7
operating procedures, all the way down into the maintenance 8
procedures.
There has been a dedicated effort at this 9
particular level that is somewhat lacking in the other levels, 10 so we need to make a review and research in that.
11 Last, I think it is important that we determine what 12 causes individuals to violate procedures, so that, as Dr. Moray 13 said, we find out what the problem is and we fix that cause.
14 Next, I'd like to briefly discuss one of the programs that we 15 have going on within NRR, before turning over to Bill.
16 That is our program that is associated with 17 probablistic risk assessment.
NRR has a program on the 18 sensitivity of plant risk parameters to human factors.
The 19 objective of this particular program, is to identify and to 20 characterize critical human performance actions and errors of 21 major risk significance.
~
22 Right now, we are using the Oconee and Limerick PRA's 23 to assist us in this effort.
The Oconee analysis is one for 24 pressurized water reactors and it is nearing completion.
The l
25 Limerick analysis has just been started and is expected to be
.~.
40 1
completed next year, The results of those will be reviewed on 2
the regulatory program when they become known.
3 Now, I'm going to turn over the program to Bill who 4
will address those ongoing programs we have in the human 5
factors area, both within headquarters and the regions.
6 NR. 3EGAN:
Following TMI, the initial focus was on 7
programs that would aid the operator in doing his job and aid 8
in his interfaco with the plant.
Generic Letter 8233, issued 9
in December, 1982, established requirements for emergency 10 response capability and among the areas covered were the 11 detailed control room design review, the safety parameter 12 display system, and emergency operating procedures.
13 With respect to the CRDR, or control room design 14 review, the requirement was that licensees and applicants for 15 licenses, carry out a detailed review of their control room for 16 the purpose of improving the availability and useability of 17 information and controls to assist the operator in preventing 18 and controlling accidents.
19 The approach was for the licensee to establf,h a 20 multi-disciplinary team that would review the control room, 21 review the tasks of the operators in an emergency and identify 22 needed modifications.
Following this, they would propose 23 safety significant changes and carry out implementation on a 24 approved schedule.
25 Progress has been very good, I think, in this area.
_. _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _. _. _,.. _ _, _,
41 1
Of 110 units that are currently under NRR's cognizance, 2
licensees for 91 of the units have completed their reviews.
In 3
over half of these, improvements to the control room have 4
either been implemented or they have been approved and are 5
under implementation.
With respect to the remaining units, in 6
these cases, for 19 of them, they must complete the review and 7
the others are still carrying out studies to come up with 8
resolutions of problems that had been identified during the 9
review.
10 In fiscal 1988, the staff effort in NRR has been 11 reduced somewhat in this area to put more focus on emargency 12 operating procedures, which I'll discuss in a moment.
At the 13 same time, we are exploring less resource-intensive ways of 14 bringing final closure to this area.
15 With respect to the safety parameter display system, 16 that was another requirement and the 737, Supplement 1.
The 17 purpose there was to provide a concise display of parameters 18 that were descriptive of plant processes, in order to aid the 19 operators in determining the plant's status and to give them at 20 all times, an overview of plant status without going to the 21 board.
22 The approach was as follows:
because of the interest 23 in having quick implementation of the SPDS, the review was set 24 up as a post-implementation review.
The utility would provide 25 a safety analysis report which we would review early on, to
42 1
ensur3 that none of the actions they were taking would 2
constitute a safety issue at the plant.
At some time in the 3
future, after implementation, we would audit the installation 4
on a spot-check basis.
5 We have issued SER's for over half the plants and we 6
have conducted a number of audits.
Initially, there was a 7
pilot program of 6 audits which were carried out in 1985 and 8
early '86.
These audits showed that the installations were not 9
coming up to expectations.
Only two of the six were found to 10 be satisfactory.
We expanded the audit program and have now 11 audited about half of the units.
Again, that ratio held true.
12 Only about one third of the installations were found 13 to be fully meeting the requirements.
As a result, we're 14 developing a revised approach in which we plan to issue a 15 generic letter which will outline to the utilities in more 16 detail, what the requirements were, what we have found to be a 17 satisfactory approach, what we found in the field -- my term is 18 good practice -- and then ask then to give us information on j
19 their installation.
20 We're not going to every plant.
We can get an 21 initial clip as to which ones look to be like problem plants 22 and which ones look to be probably satisfactory.
23 In the area of emergency operating procedures, HUREG 24 0737 Supplement 1, directed that new procedures be developed i
25 which were function oriented or symptom oriented, rather than
O i
43 1
even-based.
It also required that they be human factored.
It 2
required that the utilities and -- as it turned out, the owners 3
groups did this -- reanalyze transience and prepare guidelines 4
against which the EOP's would be developed.
5 Finally, to submit to the NRC for review, a procedure 6
generation package, which would consist of the plant's specific 1
7 technical guidelines, a writer's guide, verification of l
8 validation program and a description of the training program 9
which would be utilized to train the operators in the emergency i
10 operating procedures.
11 Again, this was set up as a post-implementation i
12 review.
We expected and wished the utilities to implement 13 these improved procedures as quickly as possible.
We received 14 all the PGP submittals.
We've reviewed most of them and have 15 issued SER's on about a third of them.
About two years ago, we 16 started some audits to look at the EOP's themselves, rather 17 than just looking at the PGP documentation, against which the 18 EOP's were developed.
19 We found a number of problems.
We found that in many 20 cases, the utilities, while they had a satisfactory PGP, in 21 implementing their EOP's or preparing their EOP's, there was 22 not any direct relationship between the PGP and the resulting i
23 EOP's.
As a result of these concerns, we issued two 24 information notices, one in 1986 and one in 1987, and decided 25 early this year to follow it up with an accelerated EOP
1 44 1
inspection program.
2 This was intended to be a pilot program.
Sixteen 3
plants were chosen -- 4 from each vendor type.
NRR, in 1
4 cooperation with the regions, set up 4 teams, each one focused 5
on a specific vendor, to do an in-depth inspection of the E0P's 6
at these plants.
The program was developed in February.
7 Training took place in March at the simulators in the training 8
center.
Teams trained together.
9 The inspections started towards the end of the March 10 and the initial 16 plant inspection will be completed about 11 mid-July.
As you can see, these inspections take from 2-3 12 weeks each.
It's a very intensive program and each of the 13 teams are on the road most of the time.
14 We have completed 9 inspections so far and while we 15 have found a number of problems with the EOP's -- many of them 16 in the human factors area and in most cases, problems with 17 respect to verification and validation of the E0P's -- we have 18 not found any problems that we would consider really safety 19 significant to the point where you would have question as to 20 whether the plant should continue operating with those l
21 procedures.
22 In that sense, I think the results of the inspection 23 have been rather edifying and favorable.
24 After we have completed the 16th plant review, we are 25 going to consider where we go from there, whether bulletins or
45 1
orders are necessary or whether we want to continue the 2
program.
I will speak about a continuation in a moment or 3
whether things are at a point where we can go back to a more 4
normal operation.
5 There was a Phase 2 which was instituted just a 6
couple of months ago, Phase 2 of the EOP inspection program.
This had particular focus on BWR Mark I's because of thy 7
8 current concern about Mark I plants and the attention they have 9
been getting.
10 Dr. Murley and other senior nanagement in NRR felt 11 that it would be useful to extend this inspection program to 12 these plants.
A few of them had been covered in Phase 1 of the 13 EOP program.
All the others are being covered in Phase 2.
14 Inspections of thene additional 12 sites started last 15 week with Fitzpatrick and will be running through September,' at 16 which time that program will be complete.
17 By the time we have finished these two phases, we 18 will have looked intensivaly at the emergency operation 19 procedures of 28 plants, which constituta 40 units.
It is a 20 fair cross-section of the industry.
21 Mr. Chairman, you mentioned earlier the flow chart 22 procedures.
I took from what you are saying, and I think it is 23 true, that it constitutes an improvement, an additional aid to 24 the operators in carrying out these procedures unoer the stress 25 of an accident.
,l L
'l
( ' ~,
s I
' 46 1
In the past, we have put out guidance for writer's 4
2 guidance, human factors guidance, so I am prep laring textual g 3
emergenc
'erating procedures.
We are now in the process of' liar guidance for preparation of flow chart 4
devele-s 5
procedt.
\\
/
/
6
._, work that we have been doing, we are doing it s
i O
p~,,
y 7
through Battelle Northwest Laboratories, and id has gsinec i
i/
/
8 quite a bit of interest on the part of the uti;11 ties and a
[/
9 number of the utilities have consulted with the group who are 10 preparing this guidance to gain some assistance.
I think this 11 is an effort that is certainly worthwhile and certainly timely.
12 CHAIRPAN ZECH:
You mentioned the flow charts, I've 13 seen a number of them in the control roons.
I alva.v,s ask the 14 operators, are you sure those' flow charts are the same thing 15 that are in your emergency operating procedures.
That's pretty 16 imporcant.
The emergency operating procedures, the ones we 17 approve, and when they translate them to this chart, it always 18 concerns me a bit.
I asked them if they are sure and I ask
~
19 them, did you participate in the transfer from the emergency 20 operating procedures to the flow chart.
Usually I get a pretty 21 strong response that they did participato.
22 It is awfully important that those flow charts adhere 23 right to our emergency operating procedures, which are the oneo 24 we have reviewed and approved.
I must say I do get a favorable 25 teaponse from the operators thamselves who seem to understand
h 4
47 1
that the emergency operating procedures dre the valid document 2
but the flow chart made up from th se documents in a very 3
careful manner can be very uselul to:them.
It also encourages
(/
4 me and gives me some degree of confidence to know that they do 5
participate very carefully in that rekiew.
I also take the
\\
N'
(
s 6
opportunity at the time to ask thnm, are you able to have an 7
input on those procedures, are you satlafied they are correct 1
i 8
and if you have any concerne about them, do you have an
'i 9
opportunity to raise that to the utility.
Again, I get a 10 favorable response on that action, too.
11 The operators must, if they are going to use the flow 12 charts, they have to know they are in compliance with our 13 requirements, again, I think it is important that they
'\\
l' f.
14 participate in that evoluElon.
15 MR. REGAN:
They participate directly.
?
\\
s
)\\
16 CHAIRMAC/ZECH:
We should check that so often.
l
)
~
MR. REGAN:
Part of the verification vclidation of 17,
18 procedures is, testing them, not only walking them down in the f
.\\
19 plant but testing them in the simulator to make sure they work.
\\
20
?HAIRMAN ZECH:
Our Regional people and resident a
inspectorp,theRegionalinspectors, our own NRR people, when 21 22 they go out, they should check those flow charts, too.
You 23 shouldn't juct' assume.
}
24 MR. REGAN:
That has been part of our inspection
[
25 prograr and also part of the inspection program has consisted
48 1
of interviews with the operators to learn their views 2
concerning the procedures, problems they have and so forth.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good.
4 MR. ROE:
Before Bill goes onto another section, 5
there were a couple of comments about the EOP inspections.
I 6
think it is noteworthy that this particular inspection is 7
focused on whether the plant can carry out the EOPs.
We check 8
them out by having a plant in the simulator run through these 9
emergency actions, then we take the opportunity to walk the 10 procedures through in the facility itself to see if the 11 operators can carry out the steps.
If the environment will 12 allow them to carry out or whether t"ere will be too high a 13 temperature, maybe a steam environment or radiation 14 environment, and lastly to see if the equipment that is 15 necessary to carry it out, such as valves, whether they can be 16 actually operated by those operators and whether things such as 17 jumpers that are called for in the procedure are available.
18 The second point is we have received quite a few kind
~
19 comments, not only from the Regional inspectors but also from 20 the utilities about the nature of our inspection and how much 21 the people have learned from going out there and actually 22 looking for the performance of these EOPs in the plant itself.
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Let's proceed.
24 MR. REGAN:
The next area I wanted to briefly address 25 is plant personnel training.
As you know, the Commission
49 1
approved a policy statement on training and accreditation in 2
February, 1985, which endorsed the INPO accreditation program 3
for a two year trial period.
The industry committed that 4
during that period, ten programs at 61 sites would be ready for 5
accreditation.
That was by December of 1986.
6 During that period, rulemaking was deferred.
7 As part of that process, the staff was to 8
independently evaluate the accreditation process through post-9 accreditation reviews and also observing, going along with the 10 INPO teams during team visits.
11 The industry has met their commitment.
During the 12 past three years, two and a half years, there has been 150 team 13 visits and visiting 677 programs.
575 of those programs have 14 been accredited.
The staff has accompanied INPO on 19 of those 15 visits and we have carried out eight post-accreditation 16 reviews.
17 While we have found some problems which we have 18 passed onto INPO, by and large we found that the program is
~
19 working and we recommended that the program be continued.
20 The Commission has approved and we are now in the 21 process of revising the policy statement.
That should be ready 22 shortly.
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I might just make one quick comment 24 in that regard.
Having been visiting the plants now in the 25 commercial nuclear industry for almost'four years, there is a
50 1
noticeable improvement in training.
Clearly there is a 2
noticeable improvement in training over that period, at least 3
from my perspective.
Training is now getting a rather formal 4
review.
The utilities I think are doing an excellent job in 5
training, certainly better than they were when I started 6
looking four years ago.
7 It is a commendable effort, I think, that has taken
^
8 place and has upgraded, I think, performance and perhaps has 9
contributed, I believe it has contributed to the improved 10 performance we have generally seen.
That doesn't mean there is 11 not room for more improvement or even better training.
It does 12 mean, at least in my view, my observation, and my previous 13 experience in training over a number of years, at least my 14 assessment has been that training is clearly improved and that 15 is something I think we should take note of.
16 MR. REGAN:
More recently, the NRR staff's attention 17 has been moving toward plant operations, as Mr. Roe indicated 18 earlier, as issues like the control room and SPDS are resolved, 19 we are concerned with issues such as shift scheduling and 20 overtime and we are in the process of preparing a revised 21 policy statement covering these matters.
The issue of 22 professionalism which I know is near and dear to the 23 commission's heart.
We are working again on a policy statement 24 on this area.
25 We are starting to look closely at licensee 1
1
_ - ~.
51 1
management and organizational climate.
If our focus had not 2
already been in this area, it would certainly have been brought 3
to that point because of the Peach Bottom event.
We are 4
looking very closely at Peach Bottom, both in terms of the 5
operator rehabilitation and the organizational climate and the 6
changes that are being made in management there.
7 We have done studies on Davis-Besse and also are 8
looking in a preliminary way at Turkey Point in terms of their 9
management and organization.
10 Our staff has participated with AEOD in diagnostic 11 inspecticns of McGuire and Dresden where our staff focused on 12 the human factcrs issues and most particularly on management 13 and organization issues.
14 That completes my discussion.
15 MR. STELLO:
Mr. Chairman, we are through.
I would 16 make one point.
On the last page of the papers, where we 17 talked about the training center, maybe we neeu to make it 18 clearer, make sure the research community at large does 19 understand that we are --
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
The last page?
21 MR..STELLO:
The very last page.
We will make an 22 effort to do that.
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Fine.
Thank you very much.
24 Questions from my fellow Commissioners?
Commissioner 25 Roberts?
52
]
1 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
No.
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Carr?
3 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Yes.
I want to make a comment.
4 As a former funder of research programs, I would classify the 5
human factorc. research program plan as soft.
It is not -- we
~
6 have spent a lot of money and I have a hard time picking out in 7
there the hard tasking so that you are going to be able to 8
defend that plan when the budget crunch comes.
It doesn't lend 9
itself to any feel that you are going to get a completed 10 project and I think we need to fol, low it closely.
11 For instance, one of the things, a management study 12 on management, organization influence on human error rate, the 13 2.5.1.2, which says "develop an organization modal of the site 14 specific operational units, operators' maintenance text, 15 instrument and control text, that can impact nuclear power 16 plant reliability.
Indicate the relationship between these 17 operational units and other site specific units.
That is 18 security, corporate units, that is purchasing and non-utility 19 units, that is contractors."
20 That doesn't sound like it needs to take 20 percent 21 of the budget for projects like that.
I would just caution 22 you, when you come in for your money, you better have a pretty 23 firm program.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Rogers?
25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I'm a little unclear about the
53 1
management and organization research.
It seems to me that is a 2
very tricky area and first, what kind of research r'eally is 3
meaningful there and how much one really can learn just by good 4
management practice that has been developed over the years in 5
other sectors.
6 I'm a little puzzled as to what one is really going 7
to learn in the way of basic research, get from basic research 8
results in management and organization.
It picks up a little 9
bit on Commissioner Carr's concerns.
I think he has indicated 10 that he is a little uncomfortable about what is gcing to come 11 out of it and I would say I share that discomfort, without 12 trying to go into it in great detail.
13 I am a little perplexed about the man-machine 14 interface areas of research priority, because I distinctly 15 recall the point being made that there was a feeling of the NAS 16 Panel that there really wasn't a need for new research in man-17 machine interface.
There were some other aspects, namely human 18 error identification of root cause.
As a distinct research 19 area of itself, I was under the impression that the NAS Panel 20 did not favor considerable new research in the man-machine 21 interface as such.
That depends a great deal on how you define 22 that area, I'm aware.
Your budget has quite a bit of -- 23 23 percent of it is in the human-machine interface area.
24 I just want to be clear that what you are 25 contemplating there is really something new and is nct
1 l
l 54 l
1 retreading the human-machine interface area which has been l
l 2
around for a long time, that has a lot of traditional work in l
l 3
it.
That's a comment and a question.
1 4
The other one is that derives a little bit from that 5
point of view, that one of the points that was made, there is 6
an awful lot of human performance research in the literature o
7 that simply hasn't been incorporated over into this field of 8
activity.
It exists.
There seems to be a lack of awareness of 9
what that research is by the people who are operating nuclear 10 power plants.
11 I wondered what your thoughts are with respect to 12 bridging that gap and trying to at least provide some way to 1
13 oncourage people to use existing knowledge, perhaps providing 14 it in a form or format that is more readily adaptable to their 15 own particular needs.
16 I recognize that we don't run plants and we don't j
17 tell people exactly how to do it.
Perhaps some examples could 18 be developed of ways of starting that flow into the daily 19 operations of nuclear power plants, of the use of information 20 which is well known, well documented, but simply news to people 21 who run nuclear plants.
^
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Just a coupl's of comments, a couple 23 of general comments.
Human factors in my view is a very 24 important field and I think it is one that we can emphasize 25 more in our regulatory responsibilities.
If you look to the
55 1
future and think about perhaps some time of new plants and new 2
designs and all, we should use the experience that we have had 3
to date in design, construction and-operations, and incorporate 4
in all those fields, working together, an emphasis on human 5
factors.
6 In other words, a new design I would hope would have 7
some operators' input, some constructors' input, too.
As the 8
design gets put together and the construction starts, I would 9
hope the operators also have a chance to be involved in the 10 construction and engineering aspects, at least people with 11 operational backgrounds.
12 If you don't design it in and construct it in, it has 13 been my experience that putting it in later is very difficult.
14 For the future, I submit that human factors is something to be 15 considered, those of you who are responsible perhaps for 16 reviewing new designs.
17 The second part of that general comment is what do we 18 do now, we have already got the plants designed and how do we
~
19 enhance human factors with a plant that is already designed.
20 Perhaps the design is not optimum.
The construction is not 21 optimum.
What I mean by that very quickly is in some areas, 22 plants that I've seen, it is clear that the design of the 23 control room really could be improved.
I think it has been 24 recognized and studied.
Even the construction, and let me 25 explain that briefly.
56 1
I found some plants designed that make maintenance 2
very difficult.
Obviously, operators and maintenance people 3
were not involved in that, or else they would have had a little 4
more room to work.
5 It is very important up' front to consider human 6
factors.
7 What do we do about the plants that are out there now 8
that perhaps could have been designed better regarding human 9
factors?
It is very difficult.
I think we should do what we 10 can to recognize that we should try the best we can with the 11 plants that are already designed and operating to make them 12 user friendly.
What can we do there?
We can help with the 13 procedures.
We can help with flow charts, mimicking, labeling, 14 those kinds of things.
15 It is not really the essence of human factors but it 16 kind of makes up for plants that might have been better human 17 factored in the first place.
18 The safety parameter display system, SPDS system, I 19 think is an excellent tool, but it is just becoming to be 20 realized as to its value.
21 I would perhaps think that we might want to consider 22 even asking some of the utilities to participate in a pilot 23 program.
It might have some interest.
We might be able to go 24 to one of the industry groups and ask them to take this on as a 25 project to see what they could do about the plants that are
57 1
already designed, what could we do better with human factors.
I 2
The effort would be worthwhile in my judgment because as we all 3
recognize, there are a number of -- we have said close to 50 4
percent of the events that have some form of human error 5
involved, and maybe even a higher percentage.
6 In any case, the pay back would be large in my view.
7 Those are a couple of general comments.
I have some 8
more specific comments very briefly.
The control room, I do 9
think that often without much extra effort -- utilities that I 10 have visited recently are doing quite an excellent job in this 11 regard -- they are trying to make mimicking more user friendly, 12 trying to color code, trying to label.
There is an effort to 13 recognize the value of human factors.
14 In the control rooms, I think we are probably making 15 as good an effort as anywhere.
On the other hand, other parts 16 of the plant, sometime at the pump stations or other places in 17 the plant where they need to be operated in case of an 18 emergency but not in normal operations, to put operating 19 instructions at the plant, at the station, make them available, 20 that is one suggestion.
21 Again, maintenance and accessibility are terribly 22 important in my view.
We should be mindful of that and the 23 utilities should be mindful of that as they try to make added 24 improvements to the plants as they exist today.
25 We should always look at the operator, the
58 1
maintenance individual, the chemist, the Rad protection 2
individual, those who are on the shifts, for example, 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 3
a day, will the modifications or will the changes made be user 4
friendly to them, will they be able to do their job better.
5 Will testing and surveillance be improved by what we are doing 6
or will it be more of a problem.
7 can we improve communications, for example, in c
8 procedures that involve surveillance and testing.
I've seen 9
recently at one of the plants a procedure, surveillance in 10 progress where the individual had on a set of phones with 11 communications with the control room and another part of the 12 plant and communicating directly like that before any evolution 13 took place.
Most plants do that quite well.
On the other 14 hand, perhaps even that system can be made a little more user 15 friendly, communications is an important part of it.
16 Those are just some specific thoughts.
More than 17 anything, I think we should involve the operators.
By 18 "operators," I don't reean just the control room operators.
I 19 mean the maintenance person, surveillance people, the equipment 20 operators, the chemists, the Rad protection people, those 21 people who are actually going to do the job.
We should involve 22 them in evolutions that will lead to changes to their station 23 or their facilities, allow them to participate and become 24 involved.
25 It not only gives them a feeling of ownership, which
59 1
I think we all realize has considerable value, but they have 2
good ideas.
Those are the people that are there all the time.
3 They can assist in the area of human factors that could result 4
in improvements to the power plant.
5 Those are my thoughts.
I think the research program 6
is only part of human factors, as we know, and as Mr. Stello 7
pointed out earlier, we know that NRR is involved, NMSS is 8
involved, AEOD is involved, too.
The research part is 9
important.
We all want to see it solid and strong and not 10 soft.
We would like to feel that the research going -- at 11 least I would like to feel that the research is really going to 12 result in perhaps some practical application to improve 13 performance by some of the broad school of operators that we 14 have mentioned.
15 In other words, we recognize there has to be some 16 what I term basic research that may or may not be a direct 17 application, but should be done because of the possibility of 18 broader application and understanding of human error and so
~
19 forth.
I think also we are interested in the more practical 20 side of research in that we do want to see some kind of an 21 improved performance and we want to see a benefit come to it 22 from human beings who make errors and who we criticize and 23 rightly so for making errors, but we want to help them and 24 prevent them from making those errors.
Therefore, we have an 25 obligation I think to do what we can to be constructive in this
. ~.
l 60 1
way and not just count the errors and add them up and have a l
2 bunch of statistics.
We want to use those statistics and to 3
recognize that most of these people we have operating the 4
plants are trying very hard to do it right.
If they make 5
errors, it is not in my judgment and experience because they l
6 want to make errors.
It is because they are human.
They make 7
mistakes that other humans might make.
o 8
If we have people who are trying hard to do it right, 9
I think it behooves us to do what we can to assist them to do 10 it right.
That is what human factors and our efforts in this 11 regard should be focused on in my judgment.
12 Are there any other comments from my fellow 13 Commissioners?
14 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Just one point that I didn't 15 get any word on.
What is the mechanism for technology transfer 16 from the Halden Project?
How do you see that actually getting 17 transferred to the U.S.?
Is it different, little different 18 culture, little different approach in Norway.
How do you see 19 that being brought into U.S. practice, whatever is learned 20 there?
21 MR. COFFMAN:
The Halden Project issues reports and
~
22 some of these reports merit translation into research 23 information letters or into information notices.
There is a 24 formal written mechanism.
In addition, we can participate and 25 our contractors can participate on site during the conduct of
61 1
the experiments.
Halden would participate with us during the 2
design of experiments.
As best we can, we plan to include 3
operators in the design of the experiments and the 4
interpretation of the results, l
5 It is rather focused at this point.
It is not
\\
6 broadly across the --
7 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
That is U.S.
operators?
8 MR. COFFMAN:
Yes, sir.
9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
All right.
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Let me conclude then by saying very 11 briefly that what we are doing -- this is a very important 12 human factors discussion and we want to follow through on this 13 and be mindful of our responsibilities.
We are not doing this 14 for human factors' sake.
What we are doing is trying to 15 develop a regulatory product that will enhance safety.
That is 16 our role.
That is what we are trying to do, develop a 17 regulatory product.
I think we should all focus on that, 18 Research, NRR and others.
What can we do to develop a 19 regulatory product that will enhance the safety of operations.
20 Safety is our big business, public health and safety will be 21 enhanced if we can do that.
22 I think our efforts in this regard are very 23 important.
24 Are there any other comments?
25 COMMISSIONER CARR:
You will notice this plan is
62 1
going to be updated periodically.
In what period do you plan 2
to update it?
3 MR. COFFMAN:
I think the general thoughts have been 4
-- there is no focused schedule.
The general thoughts have 5
been initially it would be annually but then after that, it may 6
settle down where it won't need to be updated that frequently.
7 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Thank you.
8 MR. STELLO:
I think the answer depends on how much 9
the industry does.
There is a lot going on in the industry and 10 we will want to go back and refocus on it.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Let me thank the staff for an 12 excellent presentation.
We stand adjourned.
13 (Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m.,
the briefing was 14 concluded.]
15 l
16 l
17 18 19 20 21
~
22 23 24 25
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
Briefing on Human Factors in Commercial Nuclear TITLE OF MEETING:
Power Plants and Control Room Designs PLACE OF MEETING:
Washington, D.C.
DATE OF MEETING:
Tuesday, May 31, 1988 i
were transcribed by me.
I further certify that said transcription is accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
) deaAL OeeL4Y s
i a
cg i
1 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
t 9
OUTLINE OF PRESENTATIONS ON HUMAN FACTORS Il4TP.00UCT10tl TO NRC HUMAri FACTORS ACTIVITIES RES PRESENTATION NRR PRESEflTATION 4
e NRC HUMAN FACTORS ACTIVITIES AEOD:
REVIEW 0F CPERATING EXPERIENCE NMSS:
EIEDICAL MISADMINISTRATIONS, RADIOGRAPHY SAFETY
.~
e D
I
)
C
. =
NRC HUMAN FACTORS ACTIVITIES (CONT,)
NRR:
OPERATOR EXAMIflATION ANE LICENSIt1G, E0PS, MAINTENANCE /
SURVEILL AtlCE, MAti-MACHitlE ItiTER-FACE, EVENTS Af1ALYSIS, R,ISK ASSESSMEf1T RES:
SUPPORT REGULATORY DECISIONS, ANTICIPATE HUMAN FACTORG DEVELOPMENTS OF, POTENTIAL SAFETY SIGNIFICAl4CE
~
9 NRC HUMAN FACTORS RESOURCES FY88 FY89 (FTE)
(FTE)
$.4M (3)
$.4M (3)
$.2M (2)
$.3M (4)-
NRR(H8R)
$4,8M (85)
$7,8M(113)
$4.2M (6)
$6.1M (8)
NRC
$9.6M (96T
$14,6M(128)
,.pk 16 J
\\
.-m 4,e a
w OUTLINE OF THE RES PRESENTATION ON HUMAN FACTORS '
INTRODUCTION To RES PRESENTATION CocRD!flATION WITH USER OFFICES
SUMMARY
OF HUMAt! FACTORS (ilF)
RESEARCH PROGRAM PLAN RESOURCES DISCUSSION OF NAS RECOMMENDATIONS t
5-
,,,,,,, - ~
,n.
,~,,-,:nn-,,m--n-,.
..,-~n
e.-,r~e
.-e.,.--,,,,,,,
,,w,.
,r,-,,,
r~,,
-r,-,-,,-<
1 l
INTRODUCTION TO RES PRESENTATION CHRONOLOGY NEED FOR HF RESEARCH W
D
^
.I
^l l
COORDINATION WITH USER OFFICES REQUEST USER NEEDS REVIEW ONGOING AND COMPLETED RESEARCH IDENTIFY llEED FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH INTEGRATE SIMILAR USER NEEDS INTO ONE PROJECT COORDINATE PLANNED PROJECTS WITH USERS e
r 5 _._;-
3
'l t
SUMMARY
OF HUMAN FACTORS RESEARCH'NEEDS NRR ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT HUMAN REllABILITY RESEARCH IMPACT OF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES OPERATOR /IEAM PERFORMANCE PROCEDURES Af4D TRAINING NMSS PRIORITIZED AGENDA 0F HF CONCERNS IN MATERIALS LIC'ENSING k
j i
I 1
i P
T
4
SUMMARY
OF HF RESEARCH NEEDS (CONT,)
AE0D COGNITIVE ERROR MANAGEMENT PROGRAMMATIC PERFORMANCE [NDICATORS RES i
MAN-MACHINE INTERFACE FOR ADVANCED CONTROL ROOMS HF ASPECTS OF ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT
~
HUMAN ERROR DATA BAtlK C
p p,l _ g,
oc
-[; ~ -
8 y
m -
(y +
2.-
,e
\\'
(
d'i
\\
(.
fg :
,,x-p S'
i s.
x.
4 7
,F l.-
t.y I'
f ( :($'.-
. }
f(i HUMAN FACTORS RESEARCH PROGRAM PLAN e
OBJECTIVES IDEN[IFYMAJORAREASOFHF
{!
RESEARCH IMPROVE UNDERSTANDING 0F THE l
i CAUSES OF HUMAN ERROR l
NEAR TERM RESEARCH f.
l 1
'l 1
p LONG TERM RESEAR.CH j
q r.
I
>c' o
1 f
p
/
er l
I j -
- .I '
1-
'( )
\\
(9,} '
/'
' "fb
- t.t o e'j
'. I l
lI
. - - _ - _ _ - - _ - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - ^ - - - - ^ ^ - - "
1.
^^
l
~
/
a f
(
I RESEARCH AREAS HUMAN PERFORMANCE AND HUMAN i
RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT HUMAN-MACHINE INTERFACE PROCEDURES QUALIFICATIONS AND TRAINING ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT 9
O q
_n_
e.
4 1,
/
i-I Y
i t J(.-
't, '
RESOURCES RHFB STAFF EIGHT PROFESSIONALS f,
g s
MULTIDISCIPLINARY BACKGROUNDS AND EXPERIENCE ia l1!
RESEARCH CONTRACTORS t
i h'ATIONAL LABORATORIES / UNIVERSITIES /
l i
CONSULTANTS I
EXPERIENCED HUMAN FACTORS STAFFS MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPABILITIES y
i I
\\ ~.
HUMAN FACTORS RESEARCH BUDGET FY 1988 FY 1989 HUMAN PERFORMANCE AND 32%
28%
HRA iUMAN-MACHINE INTERFACE 255 23%
PROCEDURES 16%
18%
QUALIFICATION AND TRAINING 11%
11%
ORGANIZATION AND MGMT, 16%
20%
TOTAL BUDGET (MILLION)
$4.2
$6,1
B NAS RECOMMENDATIONS PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS COMMITMENT To HF RESEARCH ADOPT A SYSTEMS ORIENTED APPROACH PEER REVIEW AND ENHANCED ACCESS TO FACILITIES l
CONTINUITY OF HF RESEARCH PROGRAM TRANSFER OF KNOWLEDGE SISSEMINATION OF.HF RESEARCH REPORTS P
5 e
4 NAS RECOMMENDATIONS (CONT.)
HF RESEARCH AGENDA HUMAN SYSTEM INTERFACE DESIGN PERSONNEL SUBSYSTEM HUMAN PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT 9
4 l'
l l
l s
Y RES HUMAN FACTORS PROGRAM i
RES COMMITMENT TO HUMAN FACTORS SYSTEMS ORIENTED APPROACH i
PEER REVIEW ACCESS TO SIMULATORS 4
STABLE HF RES BUDGET TRANSFER OF KNOWLEDGE l
HUMAN FACTORS RESEARCH AGENDA e
i 1
4 -
5 4
9 4
INTRODUCTION TO NRR PRESENTATION e
M t
- 1,7 -
4 s
D HUMAN FACTORS PROGRAM CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEWS
- SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURES PLANT PERSONNEL TRAINING OPERATOR EXAMS AND LICENSING MANAGEMENT AND ORG ANIZATION RELIABILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENT O
O I -.
NfMWdWd%%%%%%%%Wi(%%W9\\WG(%%Wp(%%%%f g(ffff%ggigtggigg TRANSMITTAt. T0:
Occument Control Desk, 016 Phillips ADVANCED COPY TO:
The Public Document Room 5/6 /N DATE:
E o
FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch 1:
A'.tached are copies of a Comission meeting transcript and related meeting
)
i; document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession 1.ist and i-placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or required.
Meeting
Title:
A' bw Oh C y
"W Y &y H WA3 Sww v
w E
Meeting Date:
5~/W /P Open X
Closed i:-
item Description *:
Copies I
Advanced DCS f:j
- 8 to POR Copy i
l'l
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 I
4)/A M - S Il V
kE l!
- 2. M N-/N
,J.
/
i;
/
=-
Ea:'
4 m:
3.
m 3
3E
=i!.
EE i
4.
h gli si 3 2 s.
si a!:
3ll
$5 6.
2::
3 3:.
- POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
}
~
C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, withcut SECY 3
papers.
- t 2
h a /M S
lllhlYl hl l lhlb lbklYl I lYl lYl lYlYlYhlklflflfhflflfthh
...