ML20197C490

Final Summary Rept of Human Factors Review for Zion Station Emergency Response Facilities

ML20197C490
Person / Time
Site:	Zion  File:ZionSolutions icon.png
Issue date:	10/31/1986
From:	ADVANCED RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML20197C485	List: ML20197C481 ML20197C490
References
NUDOCS 8611060198
Download: ML20197C490 (62)

Text

.__

I I

I I

i I

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY FINAL

SUMMARY

REPORT OF THE HUMAN FACTORS REVIEW FOR THE ZION STATION EMERGENCY RESPONSE FACILITIES I

I I

I I

October, 1986 I

CWE-91-613-04-27 8611060198 861031 PDR ADOCK 0500 5

J

I PREFACE This document was prepared jointly by the Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) and the Advanced Resource Development (ARD)

Corporation.

The ARD Corporation assisted CECO throughout all phases of the Emergency Response Facility (ERF) Review.

This report contains CECO's Final Summary Report for the human factors review of the Zion ERF, which was conducted in October 1986 as per CECO's April 14, 1983 response (Reference 1) to NUREG-0737, Supplement 1 (Reference 2).

I

-ii-

TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1-1 2.0 OVERVIEW 2-1 2.1 Data Collection Phase 2-2 2.2 Findings Assessment Phase 2-3 2.3 Reporting Phase 2-3 3.0 MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING 3-1 4.0 DOCUMENTATION AND DOCUMENT CONTROL 4-1 4.1 Input Documentation 4-1 4.2 Output Documentation 4-2 I

5.0 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER SUPPLEME!"r 1, NUREG-0737 INITIATIVES 5-1 6.0 REVIEW PROCESSES 6-1 6.1 Checklist Survey 6-1 6.2 Observation of GSEP Exercises.

6-1 6.3 Personnel Survey 6-2 6.4 Job / Task Analysis 6-3 6.5 Evaluation of Need for Reg. Guide 1.97 Information 6-4 6.6 Reference to the DCRDR Task Analisis/

Validation Data 6-5 7.0 FINDINGS ASSESSMENT 7-1 8.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS 8-1

9.0 REFERENCES

9-1

-lii-

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE APPENDICES A

ERF QUESTIONNAIRE USED FOR ZION PERSONNEL INTERVIFR A-1 B

DEMOGRAPHIC

SUMMARY

OF PARTICIP7RIS IN THE PERSONNEL INTERVIEW OF THE ZION TSC REVIEW B-1 C

FINDINGS FROM THE ZION TSC PERSONNEL INTERVIEW C-1 D

DEMOGRAPHIC

SUMMARY

OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE PERSONNEL INTERVIEW OF THE ZION EOF REVIEW D-1 E

FINDINGS FROM THE ZION EOF PERSONNEL INTERVIEW E-1 F

FINDINGS FROM THE ZION TSC CHECKLIST REVIEW F-1 G

FINDINGS FROM THE ZION EOF CHECKLIST REVIEW G-1 I

-iv-

I

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Among the directives issued to the nuclear power industry by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the aftermath of the accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2, was the need to establish Emergency

Response

Facilities (ERF) for each generating station.

These facilities include an on-site Technical Support Center (TSC), from which plant management personnel would assist the control room personnel in mitigating emergency conditions, and an off-site Emergency Operations Facility (EOF), from which management personnel would coordinate the utility's overall response to the emergency.

The functional criteria for these facilities were set forth in NUREG-0696 (Reference 3), and acceptance criteria were offered in NUREG-0814 (Reference 4).

Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO),

as part of its April 14, 1983 response (Reference 1) to NUREG-0737, Supplement 1

(Reference 2),

committed to a human factors review of the ERFs at each of its nuclear stations.

The purpose of this review was to examine the personnel / equipment interface within the TSC and EOF to determine whether these facilities provide system status information, feedback capabilities, communication capabilities and job performance aids necessary for the TSC/ EOF personnel to accomplish their functions and tasks effectively.

I l-1

I 2.0 OVERVIEW Zion's TSC is located in the owner's protected area.

Emergency exercises have been performed at the facility.

The Zion EOF is located adjacent to Zion Station.

The human factors review of the ERFs evaluated each facility in terms of the effectiveness of:

o organizational structure and staffing o

facility layout; access to sources of information; traffic patterns o

the information provided by displays and communication equipment o

the environment -- ambient noise, air quality, lighting o

procedures; availability of needed documentation and job performance aids I

The ERF review was conducted as a three-phase process.

The first phase consisted of several data collection activities that provided the basic data from which human factors problems were documented.

The second phase consisted of an assessment of the findings.

For those findings significant enough to warrant a corrective

action, approaches were decided upon for modifying the ERFs that would correct the problems described.

The third phase consisted of reporting the results of the review.

The present report is the product of this phase.

2-1 l

i

I 2.1 Data Collection Phase There were several activities involved in the review that provided data for consideration:

o A

human factors Checklist Survey of the TSC/ EOF 1

including the use of computers and CRTs o

A Personnel Survey consisting of structured interviews of key TSC/ EOF personnel o

A job analysis / task analysis of key positions in the TSC/ EOF to compile information needs and communication links based on the interview results and GSEP documentation o

Reference to the data collected during the DCRDR task analysis and validation processes, to determine if these data contained any implications for TSC/ EOF information needs The checklist survey was performed separately for the Zion TSC and EOF.

The reference to the Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) task analysis data was, of course, also specific to the Zion station.

A more detailed description of the methods employod in each activity and the findings that resulted are presented in Section 6.

I 2-2

,f d' I

I 2.2 Findincs Assessment Phase There is a

recommended disposition for each finding for the EOF.

The finding dispositions are noted in Appendicies E and G of the report.

The TSC findings for Zion Station are presently undergoing additional evaluation to determine the appropriate resolutions and to ascertain well integrated design changes which will facilitate the TSC function.

2.3 Reportinc Phase This report is generated to present the outcome of the review at Zion.

This report contains the pertinent findings and conclusions from the Zion Station ERP

review, as well as a description of the review methodology employed.

This report was prepared to show compliance with CECO's April 14, 1983 commitments to the NRC (Reference 1).

A supplement to this report will be submitted upon conclusion of the TSC finding evaluation effort.

I I

I 2-3

_ =

- = - - -

I l

l l

l i

3.O MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING 1

l The human factors review of the Zion TSC and EOF was conducted through the cooperative efforts of CECO and ARD personnel.

The review team met or exceeded the CECO commitments in Reference 1 and included well qualified and experienced personnel in the l

'I of nuclear emergency planning, operations, engineering and areas human factors.

Both CECO station and General Office personnel participated.

R.

L.

Kershner (ARD) was the lead human factors engineer.

He was supported by senior and staff-level human factors engineers with appropriate experience in nuclear industry human factors.

In order to promote the integration of the ERF review with other 0737 initiatives, a

number of the human factors personnel who supported the Zion I

ERF review were selected from those who had previously supported the DCRDR at the Zion Station.

The CECO effort was headed by the DCRDR Coordinator and Alternate DCRDR Coordinator (R.

E. Howard and K. A. Hesse) in the Nuclear Services Technical Department.

They have participated in human factors activities at each of CECO's nuclear power stations and coordinated the DCRDR projects at Zion.

They were assisted by upper-level plant and General Office personnel with direct responsibilities for emergency I

planning and plant operations.

Personnel from the Zion station supported the human factors team, as needed, as subject matter experts (SMEs).

These SMEs included personnel familiar with the computer and communications systems in the ERFs.

3-1 I

L

4.0 DOCUMENTATION AND DOCUMENT CONTROL 4.1 Inout Documentation The review team used the following documents to support the review process:

1.

Zion Generating Station Emergency Plan (GSEP) manual 2.

Drawings of the physical layout of the Zion TSC and EOF 3.

Notes from recent Emergency Exercises at Zion and other CECO nuclear stations 4.

Human Factors Checklist developed by CECO for use in the DCRDRs 5.

The CECO Supplement 1

submittal letter to the NRC (Reference 1) 6.

NUREGs 0737 (Reference 2),

0696 (Reference 3), 0814 (Reference 4),

0700 (Reference 5), and 0800 (Reference 6) 7.

Reg. Guide 1.97 (Reference 7) 8.

Documentation of communication lines in the TSC and EOF 9.

Design specifications for the SPDS and Prime computer displays 10.

DCRDR task analysis data and instrumentation require-ments list 11.

Completed ERF Checklist Surveys of the Dresden, Quad Cities and LaSalle reviews 12.

Results of the ERF Personnel Survey involving the ERF at the Dresden, Quad Cities and LaSalle reviews 4-1 l

13.

Resulting Human Engineering Findings (HEFS) from the ERF reviews at

Dresden, Quad Cities and LaSalle Stations 4.2 011tmit Documentation In addition to the present report, the following documents were generated during the review process:

a 1.

Checklist derived from Input document

1. 4, which was specific for CECO ERFs 2.

Completed checklists for the Zion TSC and EOF 3.

Summary of responses to the Personnel Survey 4.

Summary of Job Analysis information 5.

Copy of the findings in the form that they were presented, including alternative corrective actions for consideration l

4-2 i

5.0 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER SUPPLEjMENT 1.

NUREG-0737 INITIATIVES Commonwealth Edison Company has an integrated progrmn to address each of the NUREG-0737, Supplement 1 initiatives.

This program extends throughout its system of nuclear generating stations and has specific provisions for each station.

This program is headed by the CECO Station Nuclear Engineering Department, which provides the necessary integration and support to ensure that a systematic approach is adopted for the inclusion of each of the recommended design changes resulting from these initiatives.

Details of this process, including schedules, were provided in Commonwealth Edison's April 14, 1983 submittal to the NRC (Reference 1).

At each

station, the design of the Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS),

the Regulatory Guide 1.97-based instrument

displays, the development of function-oriented emergency operating procedures, the training of the operating staff, and the DCRDR are being integrated with the ERF reviews in a manner which takes full advantage of the scheduling of each of these initiatives-The human factors review of the ERFs is being conducted after the DCRDR at each station and after the operational date for the TSC/ EOF.

By performing the ERF review after the

DCRDR, it is possible to better integrate the data collected and the findings derived from these two activities.

By performing the ERF review after the operational date of the TSC/ EOF, it is possible to obtain more meaningful input from 5-1

. ~.... _

E I

l TSC/ EOF personnel, because by this time they have had experience in the actual facilities during emergency drills.

As part of the integration effort, the applicability of Reg.

Guide 1.97 variables to ERF activities was reviewed.

The variables not currently available in the ERF were to be reviewed for the need or lack of need in the ERFs based on the job analysis / task analysis of ERF personnel.

The ERF job / task analysis data were reviewed for explicit references to currently unavailable Reg. Guide 1.97 variables, a follow-up interview was conducted with selected ERF personnel to question them specifically about their nead for this information.

I I

I l

I I

5-2

[

6.0 REVIEW PROCESSES 6.1 Checklist Survey A checklist survey was conducted at both the EOF and the TSC to dPtermine whether the facility layout and environment, as well as the communication and computer equipment available, met a standard set of human factors design guidelines.

The checklist of guidelines was derived from, and is a subset of, those that CECO had developed and used to support the DCRDR.

The CECO DCRDR checklist was derived from NUREG-0700 and the differences between this CECO checklist and NUREG-0700 have been documented.

One copy of the checklist was completed at each facility by a human factors engineer with assistance, as

needed, by CECO subject matter experts.

Checklist items and associated findings that pertain to the SPDS will be documented in a separate report of the SPDS review.

Checklist items and findings that pertain j

to CRT displays or interactive devices other than the SPDS displays, are documented herein.

6.2 Observation of GSEP Exercises ARD personnel have observed several GSEP exercises. Observers were stationed in the TSC and EOF during the exercises, and they attended the debriefings conducted by the CECO GSEP controllers and afterwards by the NRC.

Attention was paid to such human factors issues as:

6-1

..x o

Workspace design; facility layout; traffic patterns o

Use of CRTs, particularly the SPDS and rad / met displays o

Use of communications systems o

Use of status boards o

Use of procedures; availability of critical information o

Environmental issues -- noise, air quality, lighting o

Organizational structure (are responsibilities well-defined?)

In addition, human factors personnel reviewed CECO's files containing comments from the NRC and CECO controllers for other GSEP exercises in recent years.

An emphasis was placed on identifying improvements for the present ERF facilities and GSEP organization to meet the information needs of the ERF staff members.

I 6.3 Personnel Survey Structured interviews were conducted by haman factors engineers on a

one-to-one basis with key personnel who have staffed the TSC and EOF at Zion during recent drills, in order to draw upon their experience under operational conditions.

The questionnaire presented in Appendix A was used as a basis for the interviews.

The interview, which lasted approximately one hour with each individual, was structured to provide information regarding the following areas:

o Chain of command o

Facility layout o

Communications systems o

Specific information pertaining to a given staff position including:

6-2 I

I I

Duties and responsibilities Communication links Workstation design Computer use Information needs Interviews were conducted with both station personnel who staff the

TSC, and General Office personnel or station personnel from other stations who staff the EOF.

The backgrounds and ERF experience of the participants are summarized in Appendices B and D.

The interviewers recorded the responses.

Care was taken at all stages to protect the confidentiality of the participants' responses.

Notes on the interview responses were transcribed and responses from all participants were compiled question by question.

A content analysis was performed and a

listing of issues was compiled.

Frequency counts as to the number of participants from a

given ERF staff position who had mentioned each is3ue were derived.

Each issue was then categorized by human factors personnel as:

o a human engineering finding o

a correct comment but not warranting a finding o

an incorrect comment; this was based on inconsistencies with other comments and with additional information available to the review team from varicus sources o

a general comment or opinion 6.4 Job / Task Analysis Throughout the review

process, the focus was on ensuring that the TSC/ EOF staffs have the information needed in order to perform effectively.

The job analysis was useful in encapsula-ting the information gathered relative to this focus.

6-3

I Summaries of the duties and responsibilities for the key positions in the TSC/ EOF were extracted from the CECO GSEP manual.

For each

position, information from the Personnel Survey was then compiled with respect to the functions and tasks performed by each participant in executing these duties and responsibilities, communication links between personnel and facilities, information and communication needs, and the sources that presently are available to supply the needed information.

This served to highlight information needs that were not being met by the present ERF facilities and equipment.

6.5 Evaluation of Need for Rec. Guide 1.97 Information Reg.

Guide 1.97 variables are available in the TSC, EOF, control room or elsewhere on-site.

Readings of the unavailable variables can be obtained by ERF personnel with a phone call to the appropriate location.

A review of the time-critical need of this information was conducted to determine if the instrumenta-tion also should be made available on the ERF CRTs.

Several task analytic techniques were used to determine the need for this information in the context of ERF staff members' duties and responsibilities.

Observations from the GSEP exercises were reviewed for any information deficiencies.

Second, the responses to the open-ended questions in the ERF Personnel Survey were reviewed for references to the unavailable Reg.

Guide 1.97 information.

I I

I 6-4 l

6.6 Reference to the DCRDR Task Analysis / Validation Data The task analysis and validation data collected during the DCRDR were reviewed to determine if they had any implication for the information needs of the TSC and EOF.

There were no references to the TSC or EOF found in these data.

This is not surprising

because, while guidance from personnel in the TSC and EOF can be a

valuable input to the control room operating

crew, the assumption made in designing the procedures and training programs for control room personnel is that they should be able to function without being dependent on such input.

6-5

I 7.0 FINDINGS ASSESSMENT The findings resulting from the data collection activities included the following information:

1.

The ERF facility to which the finding applied 2.

Finding number 3.

Checklist guideline number that the finding violated (if applicable) j 4.

Data collection activity from which the finding resulted 5.

Description of the problem 6.

Alternative recommendations for consideration

/

I 7-1

I 8.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS The responsibility for assessing the findings discovered in the ERF review process rested with the Nuclear Services Technical and Station Operations.

The recommendations with regard to the resolution of findings were reviewed by appropriate representa-tives of these departments, in conjunction with human factors personnel, and final decisions were made as to which findings warranted correction.

Justifications were written for those findings that warrant no further action.

I 8-1

I

9.0 REFERENCES

1.

April 14, 1983 letter from Cordell

Reed, Commonwealth

Edison, to Harold

Denton, U.

S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commissica, regarding CECO's response to NUREG-0737, Supplement 1.

2.

U.

S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements,"

USNRC Report NUREG-0737, I

Supplement 1 (Generic Letter 82-33), 1982.

3.

U.

S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Functional Criteria for Emergency Response Facilities," USNRC Report NUREG-0696, February, 1981.

4.

U.

S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

" Methodology for Evaluation of Emergency Response Facilities," USNRC Report NUREG-0814, August, 1981.

5.

U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Guidelines for Control Room Design Reviews,"

USNRC Report NUREG-0700, September, 1381.

6.

U.

S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power

Plants, LWR Edition,"

USNRC Report NUREG-0800, Revision 0 of Appendix A

to SRP Section 18.2, " Human Factors Review Guidelines for the Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS),"

January, 1985.

7.

U.

S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.97,

" Instrumentation for Light-Water-Cooled-Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant and Environs Conditions During and Following an Accident," Revision 2.,

December, 1980.

9-1

.L'_

I mmmxA ERF QUESTIONNAIRE USED FOR ZION PERSONNEL INTERVIEW I

l i

l I

l I

A-1

n ERF. INTERVIEWS -- COVER LETTER ARD Corporation is supporting Commonwealth Edison Company in a human factors review of the CECO Emergency Response Facilities (ERFs).

The goal is to ensure:

(1) that the ERFs provide staff members with all the information they need in order to accomplish their intended functions during an emergency and (2) that the organizational structure and physical environments of the ERFs allow the staff as a whole to perform effectively.

In this context, we are interviewing key CECO personnel who have staffed the Technical Support Center (TSC) and Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) at each station during recent emergency drills.

Our immediate concern is with the TSC and EOF at Zion Station.

The interviews will address the issues listed in the attached questionnaire.

THERE IS NO NEED FOR YOU TO WRITE RESPONSES TO THESE QUESTIONS.

We are distributing the questionnaire now so

that, if your schedule

permits, you can familiarize yourself with the issues that will be raised during the interviews.

Your input will be valuable to us in documenting what the staff views to be the strong points of the present

ERFs, in identifying potential human factors problems, and in formulating recommendations that will both correct any problems and respond to recent Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements.

We anticipate that each interview will last 45 minutes to one hour.

The interviewer will be taking notes on your verbal replies to the items on the questionnaire.

These notes will be transcribed and then combined and summarized, along with those of your colleagues, on a question-by-question basis.

Your responses will be strictly confidential.

Only ARD personnel will have access to the transcribed notes, and the findings presented to CECO management will be based on the summaries.

The demographic information that we request from you will be dissociated from your responses to the questionnaire.

Any potential human factors problems will be documented in the form of Human Engineering Findings (HEFs).

These HEFs will then be assessed and resolved by an HEF Assessment Team consisting of CECO managers and a

representative from ARD.

ARD will also support CECO in preparing a final report to the NRC.

A-2

~ - - _ _.

I ERF INTERVIEW -- DEMOGRAPHICS I

1.

Present position:

How long?

2.

How long with Commonwealth Edison?

3.

How long in nuclear industry?

4.

Previous industry positions:

5.

Have you held a Reactor Operator (RO) license?

How long?

6.

Have you held a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) license?

How long?

7.

Have you been involved in Emergency Planning?

How?

I 8.

What staff positions in the TSC or EOF have you filled during CECO Emergency Drills?

At which sites?

When?

I A-3

Date Interviewer Station GENERAL INFORMATION 1.

Is the chain of command clear in the TSC/ EOF?

Does it allow for effective functioning?

If not, why?

2.

Is the layout of the TSC/ EOF conducive to effective operations?

Traffic flow?

Interactions between individuals who need to interact?

Is there space for all participants?

If not, why?

3.

Do the communications systems (telephones,

radios, loud

speakers, etc.)

provide for an adequate flow of information?

If not, why?

4.

Are the CRTs used effectively?

Why or why not?

5.

Do the status boards keep the staff updated as to plant conditions? event status? rad / met status?

If not, why?

6.

Does the TSC/ EOF provide an adequate working environment (noise, air quality, lighting) for the staff?

If not, why?

SPECIFIC INFORMATION PERTAINING TO A GIVEN STAFF POSITION Responsibilities 7.

What role would you play in the

TSC, EOF during an emergency?

8.

Have you played this role during emergency drills?

How many?

What station?

9.

Briefly describe your duties and responsibilities.

10. In the TSC/ EOF, to whom do you directly report?

Is this person easily accessible to you (physical

access, communications equipment)?

l A-4 l

1 -

11. In the TSC/ EOF, who directly reports to you?

Are they easily accessible to you (physical access, communications equipment)?

12. With whom else in the TSC/ EOF do you frequently interact?

Are they easily accessible to you (physical

access, communications equipment)?

13. Is there any task related to your job that takes too much of your time or attention?

14. Are the procedures you must follow clear and well documented?

If not, why?

15. Have you received adequate training to perform your job?

If not, what areas should receive more emphasis?

I Workstation

16. What equipment do you need to perform your job?

Do you have all the equipment you need?

Is there any equipment at your workstation that you consider extraneous?

Type of equipment Readily availablel telephones radios procedures other documentation maps status boards CRTs hardcopy printers other

17. Do you have adequate workspace at your workstation?

Is there enough storage and file space at the workstaticn?

Is the workstation laid out in a manner that makes it easily usable?

18. Can you see all the status boards from your workstation and read the information written on them?

Does the specific information presented and format of the status boards meet your needs?

Would you prefer that some other method be used to keep you posted on current conditions?

A-5

l l

l

19. Do the communications systems (telephones, loud speaker, radios) in the TSC/ EOF meet your needs?

Adequate number of lines?

Ease of use?

Well labeled?

Any confusion as to which lines are active?

Computer use

20. Do you make use of the computer or CRT displays?

If so:

4

21. Are the CRTs located conveniently?

22. What displays or programs do you use most frequently?

I

23. Are there any additional displays or programs that you would find uteful?

24. Are th9 procedures and documentation for the CRTs easy to use?

25. Are the words and symbols that appear on the screen easy to understand?

26. Are the keys labeled clearly and unambiguously?

Are they consistent with abbreviations and labels used elsewhere?

27. Do you need hardcopy outputs?

Are they readily available?

i l

28. If you have been involved in drills for more than one

station, have the different display formats at the different stations caused any confusion for you?

i l

l Information Needs

29. What general types of information do you need in order to perform your job?

How do you get that information at present?

Can you think of any types of information that are not readily available?

Type of Info Source _of Info If on a CRT. how often should preferred format f

be updated?

1 A-6 l

l u

30. What specific parameters do you need to track in order to perform your job?

How do you get that information at present?

Can you think of any parameters that are not readily available?

(If appropriate, refer to scenarios and task analysis data)

Parameter Source of Param.

I f on a CRT. how often should Dreferred format be updated?

I I

--._.-l_..-_____._

'I APPENDIX B I

DEMOGRAPHIC

SUMMARY

OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE ZION TSC PERSONNEL INTERVIEW I

I I

I l

l I

I I

e-1

I I

Personnel Democraphics of Zion TSC Interview Participants Current Job Classifications Seven TSC personnel at Zion Station were interviewed during

October, 1986.

Table 1 lists the current CECO positions and the number of interviewees holding those positions.

Table 1.

Job Classification of Interviewees Position Frecuency Assistant Superintendent of Maintenance 1

Lead Health Physicist 1

Lead Health Physics Foreman 1

Office Supervisor 1

Operating Engineer 1

Superintendent of Production 1

Technical Staff Supervisor 1

Nuclear Experience The distribution of experience of interviewees with CECO, in the nuclear

industry, and in their present positions, is presented in Table 2.

B-2

Table 2.

Experience of Interviewees LENGTH OF EMPLOYMENT l-Syr 6-10yr 11-15yr 16-20yr 20yr+

I With CECO 1

0 6

0 0

N NT In Nuclear 1

1 4

0 1

UE Industry MR BV LENGTH OF EMPLOYMENT EI O-6mo 6-12mo 1-3yr 4-7yr RE W

OE In Present 0

3 2

2 FE Position S

The average tenure of the interviewees is 1.83 years in their current positions, 12.2 years at CECO, and 11.9 years in the nuclear industry.

Of the seven personnel. interviewed, four (57%) indicated that they held the Senior Reactor Operator's (SRO) License.

The average tenure for holding the SRO was six years.

TSC Roles Table 3 indicates positions in the TSC that interviewees have played in previous exercises.

I B-3

Table 3.

TSC Positions Played by Interviewees Position Frecuency Administrative Director 1

Environs Director 1

Maintenance Director 1

Operations Director 1

Rad-Chem Director 1

Station Director 1

Technical Director 1

The average number of exercises in which the interviewees have participated is 4.7.

I I

4 B-4 I

APPENDIX C FINDINGS FROM THE ZION TSC PERSONNEL INTERVIEW l

I

'I These TSC findings have been reviewed and the resolutions are currently under evaluation by Commonwealth Edison to insure a well integrated approach to the Zion TSC concerns.

These resolutions will be documented in a supplemental report.

C-1

2___..

. _ - ~ '

w Areas of Concern Identified by the TSC Personnel Interview Area 1.

FINDING:

The size of the TSC was viewed to be too small by all of the interviewees.

There was not adequate size for the number of people who were required to be present.

Area 2.

FINDING:

Restroom facilities are not available within the TSC and require exiting the room and going through the control room or the turbine building.

Area 3.

FINDING:

The ventilation system in the TSC is very noisy and does not allow for clear communication unless an individual speaks in a very loud voice.

Area 4.

FINDING:

The use of the communications systems was viewed to be confusing.

Interviewees perceive that adequate training and direction regarding how the systems should be used has not been provided.

Area 5.

FINDING:

A question was raised regarding the effective use of the computer models used during the drills.

It was noted that the information presented on the CRTs j

did not accurately reflect either the proper time sequence or certain parameters.

C-2

Areas of Concern Identified by the TSC Personnel Interview I

Area 6.

FINDING:

Not enough wall space was viewed to be available for the status boards.

Area 7.

FINDING:

The preprinted forms on which information was presented on the status boards were viewed to be inadequate.

It was felt that individually created forms were needed for each event depending upon the critical parameters pertaining to that event.

Area 8.

FINDING:

The log for monitor readings was negatively viewed.

It was suggested that it needed to be laid out differently in order to reflect the importance and priority of the specific information, especially in recording trends.

I Area 9.

FINDING:

The numerical tab system for the main GSEP manual (in red binder) was viewed to be confusing.

Specific wording briefly describing what materials are present in each section was suggested as an improvement.

Area 10. FINDING:

Training for participation in GSEP drills was viewed to be

adequate, but improvement could result from more role-specific training as well as additional testing.

Area 11. FINDING:

The rad protection and chem procedures are not present in the TSC.

C-3

I Areas of Concern Identified by the TSC Personnel Interview Area 12. FINDING:

There is limited table space for the use of procedures and maps in the TSC.

Area 13. FINDING:

Adequate aerial maps of the surrounding area are not available.

Identifying quadrants and picking out points is very difficult.

Area 14. FINDING:

Adequate storage and filing space was not viewed to be available in the TSC.

Area 15. FINDING:

The lack of space for status boards does not allow for an observation of the sequencing events.

For the most part, there is only a point-in-time picture of status presented.

Area 16. FINDING:

The use of the telephones can be confusing.

Emergency numbers are not easily available.

Area 17. FINDING:

The space for the CRTs in the TSC is limited; the main CRT would be more easily readable if it were closer.

Area 18. FINDING:

The procedures for the use of the CRTs are well documented, but a

quick reference guide would minimize confusion in their use.

C-4

- - :2_ _ _ __ ___ _-- T _

Areas of Concern Identified by the TSC Personnel Interview l

I Area 19. FINDING:

Telephone numbers for the desks of personnel holding specific GSEP positions differ from station to station and can create confusion if the appropriate numbers are not posted on the telephones.

f I

I C-5 I

I

-- =.-. = =

Areas of Concern Identified by the TSC Personnel Interview I

APPENDIX D OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE "sION EOF PERSONNEL INTERVIEW l

1 l

1 I

D-1

Areas of Concern Identified by the TSC Personnel Interview Personnel Democraphics of Zion EOF Interview Participants Current Job Classifications Seven EOF personnel at Zion Station were interviewed during

October, 1986.

Table 1 lists the current CECO positions and the number of interviewees holding those positions.

Table 1.

Job Classification of Interviewees Position Frecuency Lead Health Physicist 1

Maintenance Manager 1

Operations Manager 1

Radiological Engineering Supervisor 1

Senior Staff Engineer 1

Staff Assistant 1

Technical Staff Supervisor 1

Nuclear Experience The distribution of experience of interviewees with CECO, in the nuclear

industry, and in their present positions, is presented in Table 2.

D-2

I Areas of Concern Identified by the TSC Personnel Interview I

Table 2.

Experience of Interviewees I

I LENGTH OF EMPLOYMENT 1-Syr 6-10yr ll-15yr 16-20yr 20yr+

1 With CECO 1

0 2

2 2

I N

NT In Nuclear 1

1 0

3 2

UE Industry MR BV LENGTH OF EMPLOYMENT EI O-6mo 6-12mo 1-3yr 4-7yr RE W

OE In Present 1

1 3

2 i

FE Position l

I 8

The average tenure of the interviewees is 1.5 years in the current position, 18.9 years at CECO, and 16.2 years in the nuclear industry.

Of the seven personnel interviewed, four (57%) indicated that I

they held the Senior Reactor Operator's (SRO) License.

The average tenure for holding the SRO was 10.3 years.

l EOF Roles i

Table 3 indicates the primary positions in the EOF that interviewees have played in previous exercises.

I l

D-3

=------;.-

Areas of Concern Identified by the TSC Personnel Interview I

Table 3.

EOF Positions Played by Interviewees I

Position Frecuency Communicator 1

Environmental Emergency Coordinator 1

Environs Director 1

Health Physics Director 1

Recovery Manager 2

Technical Director 1

I I

I D-4 i

.~- -

I APPENDIX E FINDINGS FROM THE ZION EOF PERSONNEL INTERVIEW l

I

I E-1

I Areas of Concern Identified by the EOF Personnel Interview Area 20.

FINDING:

The hierarchy of command was viewed to be too

flat, with the Recovery Manager needing to I

interact with too many individuals.

The Recovery Manager could reorganize the people, depending upon the particular event; Rev. 6 of the GSEP procedures may address this concern.

DISPOSITIDN:

Rev. 6 of Generating Stations Emergency Plan (GSEP) publishes a

new recovery group organization that provides a manager for each of the three primary functions:

advisory support, which includes dose projection and government liaison activities; technical

support, which is oriented towards technical problem solving; and public information, which deals with media concerns.

Each of these three managers has a deputy with the title of director.

It is envisioned that the managers will work primarily with the Recovery Manager to determine policy and to make decisions.

Their deputies, the three directors, will coordinate the activities of the remaining directors and staff in these three major functional areas.

Thus, the Recovery Manager's span of control is reduced, and a depth is added at the higher levels of the recovery group.

This organizational concept will be in use for all exercises conducted in 1987.

I E-2

I I

Area 21.

FINDING:

It was viewed as possible to improve the layout of the EOF by subdividing it by specific functional lines.

A change in organizational structure (i.e.,

as in Rev 6) could be paralleled by a

physical layout subdivision which is consistent with this organizational structure change.

I DISPOSITION:

Revision to the physical arrangement of the EOF has been studied by a committee representing a

variety of positions in the recovery group:

emergency planning computer / communications personnel and office design personnel.

Plans for a massive rearrangement of the EOF has proved inconclusive; therefore, the following program is planned:

(1)

Provide room for additional staff positions and state / federal agency representatives by I

replacing selected desks with tables.

(2)

Install additional CRTs and data communication enhancements to provide quicker access to information from more locations in the EOF.

(3)

Install a microprocessor and CRTs in the EOF and prepare programs to enable status board information to be displayed on terminals throughout the EOF.

(4)

Make minor adjustments in layout during preparations for the Zion Federal Field Exercise.

Observe FFE to determine what additional changes are needed and proceed with implementation based cn experience.

As discussed, changes will be implemented by December 31, 1988.

E-3

I Areas of Concern Identified by the EOF Personnel Interview Area 22.

FINDING:

The telecopier is located in the administrative area at some distance from a number of individuals who need such information.

Increased need for telecopies makes such an arrangement less than optimal.

Additional telecopiers, a change in copier location or runners who can transport the information were suggested solutions.

DISPOSITION:

Additional personnel / clerks have been added to the recovery team.

At

present, two telecopiers are permanently available.

Provisions are presently being made to provide two additional telecopiers from an EOF equipment support pool during exercises and events.

This will provide the EOF support team with four telecopiers, two incoming and two outgoing.

Area 23.

FINDING:

The use of the blue phones does not appear to be well understood; some training and better direction would improve their overall effectiveness.

DISPOSITION:

Communications systems, to include the use of party line (blue) phones, is included in the present training program.

This comment will be provided to production training center as feedback for use in providing training programs.

I l

E-4

I Area 24.

FINDING:

It would be helpful to have distinctive rings for the console telephones, especially the NARS phones.

DISPOSITION:

All directors' and other multiline phones have light indicators which alert the operator I

as to which line is active.

Area 25.

FINDING:

The use of the loudspeaker often appears to be distracting and confusing.

Its use could be minimized, perhaps limited to the Recovery Manager, and also restricted to certain areas of the EOF.

DISPOSITION:

The PA loudspeakers are necessary for briefings and updates.

It is the responsibility of Recovery Manager to govern the use of the system settings and the sound levels.

A review of the speaker boxes will be conducted and corrected to minimize distractions from the PA system.

I Area 26.

FINDING:

The use of the point history program and the SPDS may not be as effective as it could be because individuals are not well trained in the use of these programs.

DISPOSITION:

The production training department and station training department will review the point history program and SPDS training and revise accordingly.

I E-5

.. ~

I I

Areas of Concern Identified by the TSC Personnel Interview I

Area 27.

FINDING:

The CRTs are used effectively once they are up and

running, but no specific instructions appear to be easily available to assist individuals in starting them up.

This can be a problem in that it can delay the process by which the EOF becomes fully operational because the first people who appear on site are not typically sophisticated in computer use.

DISPOSITION:

Instructions for CRT use will be developed and made available near each terminal.

A revised Environs Director procedure (ED-25) contains specific directions for turning on computers and accessing programs.

The instrumentation and the procedure will be distributed by March 31, 1987.

Area 28.

FINDING:

The status boardsdo not always appear to be kept up to date.

The addition of some recorders has improved the situation somewhat.

DISPOSITION:

CRTs will be installed to provide status displays and other information at various locations in the EOF by December 31, 1988.

I I

E-6

.-._a--...

2 I

I Area 29.

FINDING:

The status hoards are pre-blocked and require certain types of information to be posted regardless of the specific type of event.

This may be confusing and take up too much time.

It is desirable to have custom-tailored boards specific to the parameters most relevant to a specific event.

DISPOSITION:

CRTs will be installed to provide status displays and other information at various locations in the EOF.

The status display programs will be menu-driven and will be sufficiently flexible to permit the recorder to construct the displays he wants/needs to see.

The CRTs and corresponding computer programs 'till be implemented by December 31, 1988.

I Area 30.

FINDING:

Filling out log sheets and keeping track of what has been happening is a

time-consuming and cumbersome process.

The use of dictaphones and/or pocket recorders as well as the provision of necessary support personnel for transcription would be highly desirable.

I DISPOSITION:

Maintaining good logs is a necessary part of each director's duties.

In addition, each director has the authority to request additional support staff.

I E-7

I Areas of Concern Identified by the TSC Personnel Interview Area 31.

FINDING:

The focus of training appears to be too heavily oriented toward procedures.

Increased attention could be given to emergency management and decision making.

DISPOSITION:

Training for EOF personnel will be reviewed and evaluated and appropriate improvements made.

Area 32.

FINDING:

Training has not appeared to be oriented toward the specific geographic site of the station.

With regard to learning the local territory surround-ing the station, more site-specific training would be highly desirable.

DISPOSITION:

Site-specific training for EOF personnel will be reviewed and evaluated and appropriate improvements made.

E-8

Area 33.

FINDING:

It appears to be difficult to locate specific procedures, references guides and other documentation in the EOF.

A reference guide or key that would allow easy identification of locations where particular information exists would be essential.

DISPOSITION:

A reference key that would allow easy identification of locations where particular information exists will be implemented by December 31, 1987.

I Area 34.

FINDING:

Adequate updated aerial maps of the area surrounding the plant station are not available, and their absence may prevent the effective direction of those in the field.

The Environs Director must be aware of roads, bridges and other traffic paths that may ha\\?e been

rerouted, closed, or are under construction.

DISPOSITION:

Aerial photographic maps of the I

surrounding area will be made available in the EOF by December 31, 1987.

Area 35.

FINDII{G:

Procedures to determine relocation to the backup EOF need to be developed.

Questions related to the conditions under which such relocation would

occur, who would be relocated and under whose leadership, and the adequacy of the facilities at the backup EOF are important to answer.

DISPOSITION:

These procedures are presently under development and will be completed by June 1, 1987.

E-9 I

Areas of Concern Identified by the EOF Personnel Interview Area 36.

FINDING:

There are differences between terminals in the use of some computer programs.

Operational aids could be posted at each terminal to identify how to access programs from the specific CRT.

DISPOSITION:

Log-in and general operating procedures will be provided in sufficient detail in the ED-25 procedure revision to be completed by December 31, 1986.

Area 37.

FINDING:

The use of the telephones can sometimes be confusing.

Labeling of lines & d information regard-ing actuation would be very helpful.

DISPOSITION:

Telephone identification methods will be revised to functionally identify telephones by March 31, 1987.

Area 38.

FINDING:

The SPDS differs from station to station, and it is necessary to train individuals in tne differences among the SPDS formats and how to use the SPDS effectively.

DISPOSITION:

Differences in display formats are inevitable due to plant-specific differences.

E-10

1 APPENDIX F FINDINGS FROM THE ZION TSC CHECKLIST REVIEW E

E These TSC findings have been reviewed and the resolutions are currently under evaluation by Commonwealth Edison to insure a well integrated approach to the Zion TSC concerns.

These resolutions will be documented in a supplemental report.

i F-1 l

l

Areas of Concern Identified by the TSC Checklist Review TSC Workspace I

Area 39.

GUIDELINE NO:

1.1. 3. c ;

1.1. 3. d FINDING:

A conference table formed by two face-to-face rows of desks is provided for the people playing tne GSEP positions in the TSC.

Because the TSC is located in the back of the Shift Engineer's

office, the overall size of the TSC is very small and this table arrangement takes up most of the floor space.

The area is crowded even during non-GSEP

times, and workspace as well as walkspace is at a premium.

Area 40.

GUIDELINE NO:

1.1.3.e FINDING:

There is adequate room behind each chair at the conference table as long as there are no people walking about and the CRTs are not in use.

However, such is not the case during a GSEP drill or event.

hl Chairs are not provided for CRT users because their 5

chairs would interfere with those of the people sitting at the conference table.

Emeroency Ecuipment Area 41.

GUIDELINE NO:

1.4.1.i FINDING:

Instructions for

donning, doffing and controlling protective equipment are not available at the TSC.

F-2

I TSC Environment Area 42.

GUIDELINE NO:

1.5.7.a(3)

FINDING:

Due to the small size of the TSC, most of the status

boards, maps and other visual displays must be mounted on the wall.

These items, along with file cabinets and bookshelves, take up most of the wall

space, creating a

cluttered feeling.

The important visual displays, namely the status boards, get lost in the clutter.

Area 43.

GUIDELINE NO:

1.5.7.a(4)

FINDING:

The chairs in the TSC are made of hard plastic with no back or seat padding.

The arm rests are made of thin metal tubing (1/2 inch thickness).

The design of the chairs may not prove appropriate for long periods of use.

Area 44.

GUIDELINE NO:

1.5.7.a(5)

E FINDING:

No carpeting is used to lessen the fatigue of standing and walking; the TSC has a hard linoleum floor.

Area 45.

GUIDELINE NO:

1.5.7.b(1)

FINDING:

Restroom and kitchen facilities are not provided in or near the TSC.

They are located across the turbine floor, a several minute walk.

F-3

.. ~ _. _.

l Areas of Concern Identified by the TSC Checklist Review Labels and Locations Aids I

Area 46.

GUIDELINE NO:

5.1.3.b(3)

FINDING:

The following status boards are lettered with mixed-case letters and are somewhat difficult to read from a distance:

Zion Plant Status; Summary of Significant Events; EOF Organization; and TSC Organization.

Computers Area 47.

GUIDELINE NO:

7.2.2.c I

FINDING:

The width-to-height ratio for the charac-ters displayed by the Ramtek CRT is 1:2, which is smaller than the recommended ratio of between 3:5 and 1:1.

Area 48.

GUIDELINE NO:

7.3.1.d FINDING:

The speed of the printers is 120 lines per

minute, which is below the recommended speed of 300 lines per minute.

Area 49.

GUIDELINE NO:

7.3.1.e(3)

FINDING:

Instructions for reloading paper, ribbon, ink, etc. are not attached to the printer.

I F-4

- ~ +

m.

e a-

=

APPENDIX G FINDINGS FPOM THE ZION EOF CHECKLIST REVIEW I

)

e G-1

1 1

I Areas of Concern Identified by the EOF Checklist Review I

EOF Worksoace Area 50.

GUIDELINE NO:

1.1.3.c(2)

FINDING:

The desks provided for the Rad Waste / Rad Control Manager and the Health Physics Director face away from the main working area where the Recovery Manager's desk as well as the status boards, maps and CRTs are located.

DISPOSITION:

The Rad Waste / Rad Control Manager ud the Health Physics Director interact primarily with counterparts at the station to provide backup assistance and to provide information to the recovery group.

These functions are not hampered by the current physical arrangements because the focus of their activities is directed on site.

I I

G-2 I

Area 51.

GUIDELINE NO:

1.1.3.e(1)

FINDING:

A number of desks located in the work area outside the main work area back up to one another; these desks are provided mainly for NRC staff and additional CECO employees.

When the desks are in

use, the distance between the backs of the chairs is 20 inches or less (the minimum recommended distance is 36 inches).

DISPOSITION:

Space is limited.

With the expanding staffing requirement, it is difficult to provide each j

individual with anything but minimal requirement.

I Care has been taken to provide adequate space for areas where needed equipment is present.

Area 52.

GUIDELINE NO:

1.2.3.a(1)

FINDING:

The two desks located in the rear of the l

main work area provided for CECO staff and Rad Waste l

l staff face 34-inch-high desk dividers.

These l

l dividers block the view of the status boards, maps and CRTs.

DISPOSITION:

The personnel sitting at these desks do j

l not need visual access to the status boards.

Emeroency Ecuipment l

Area 53.

GUIDELINE NO:

1.4.1.1 FINDING:

Instructions for

donning, doffing and controlling protective equipment are not available in the EOF.

DISPOSITION:

All personnel are trained on the proper use of protective equipment.

l I

G-3

I I

Areas of Concern Identified by the EOF Checklist Review EOF Environment Area 54.

GUIDELINE NO:

1.5.7.a(5)

FINDING:

No carpeting is used to lessen the fatigue of standing and walking; the EOF has a hard linoleum tile floor.

DISPOSITION:

The EOF is only used intermittently for short periods of time.

Standing and walking for a certain length of time is not required for the performance of their duties.

Voice Communication Systems Area 55.

GUIDELINE NO:

2.1.2.b(3)

FINDING:

Telephone cords hang from the fronts of some desks and lay in loose bunches on the floor; this poses a tripping hazard.

DISPOSITTON:

Accept as is; the problem with cords tangling is minimal and has had a

negligible influence on EOF personnel.

Area 56.

GUIDELINE NO:

2.1.6.c(1)

FINDING:

Speakers for the EOF PA system are not provided in the EOF locker / shower room or in the vending area of the adjacent Westinghouse facility.

DISPOSITION:

An individual, by procedure, must be formally relieved from his/her post before he/~he can leave the primary area.

These people can be I

contacted very quickly if their presence is required.

G-4

I Visual Displays Area 57.

GUIDELINE NO:

5.1.3.b(3)

FINDING:

The following status boards are lettered with mixed-case letters and are somewhat difficult to read from a

distance:

Zion Plan Status; Summary of Significant Events; TSC Organization; and CCC Organization.

DISPOSITION:

Additional CRTs and data communications enhancements, including electronic status board

displays, will provide greater access to information in the EOF by December 31, 1988.

Labels and Location Aids Area 58.

GUIDELINE NO:

6.2.1.a; 6.2.2.b; 6.2.3.a(1)

FINDING:

Dynotape labels are used to identify buttons on telephones.

They are securely affixed and easily readable (with white letters on either blue or black tape).

However, some are placed vertically, with the letters reading from top to bottom, and are curved down along the front of the telephone, below the identified buttons.

DISPOSITION:

The status of the telephone labels will be addressed by the surveillance procedures.

Labels will be replaced as necessary.

G-5

Areas of Concern Identified by the EOF Checklist Review Area 59.

GUIDELINE NO:

6.4.2.d(3)

FINDING:

The vertically-lettered dynotape labels on the telephones have a vertical character separation of about 0.25 of the letter height (the minimum recommended distance is 0.5 of the letter height).

DISPOSITION:

The dynotape will be replaced with a new lettering system.

The lettering will have proper vertical character separation.

Computers Area 60.

GUIDELINE NO:

7.2.2.c FINDING:

The width-to-height ratio for the charac-ters displayed by the Ramtek CRT is 1:2, which is smaller than the recommended ratio of between 3:5 and 1:1.

DISPOSITION:

Accept as is; these characters are legible.

Area 61.

GUIDELINE NO:

7.3.1.d FINDING:

The speed of the printers is 120 lines per

minute, which is below the recommended speed of 300 lines per minute.

DISPOSITION:

Accept as is; the computer buffers the information so there is no danger of losing it.

The I

present printer speed is sufficient to provide needed information in a timely manner.

I G-6

I Area 62.

GUIDELINE NO:

7.3.1.e(3)

FINDING:

Instructions for reloading paper, ribbon, ink, etc. are not attached to the printer.

DISPOSITION:

Accept as is; users have been able to reload paper without written instructions.

Instructions for changing the ribbon are attached to the underside of the front plate.

I I

I

I l

l l

G-7