NSD-NRC-97-4938, Addresses Dser Chapter 18 Open Items for NUREG-0711,Elements 1 & 7 Which Are Related to Info from WCAP-12601,Rev 19, AP600 Program Operating Procedures. Requests That Draft WCAP-14822,be Reviewed

Addresses Dser Chapter 18 Open Items for NUREG-0711,Elements 1 & 7 Which Are Related to Info from WCAP-12601,Rev 19, AP600 Program Operating Procedures. Requests That Draft WCAP-14822,be Reviewed

ML20134A544
Person / Time
Site:	05200003
Issue date:	01/15/1997
From:	Mcintyre B WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
To:	Quay T NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20134A548	List: ML20134A550 ML20134A555 ML20134A562 ML20134A580 ML20134A585 ML20134A590 ML20134A600 ML20134A606 ML20134A615 NSD-NRC-97-4938, Addresses Dser Chapter 18 Open Items for NUREG-0711,Elements 1 & 7 Which Are Related to Info from WCAP-12601,Rev 19, AP600 Program Operating Procedures. Requests That Draft WCAP-14822,be Reviewed
References
RTR-NUREG-0711, RTR-NUREG-711 NSD-NRC-97-4938, NUDOCS 9701280349
Download: ML20134A544 (12)

Text

_. ._ .- - _

(\ e 4

=

s ,

Westinghouse Energy Systems Ba 355 Electric Corporation Pittsburgh Pennsylvania 15230-0355 NSD-NRC-97-4938 DCP/NRC0704 Docket No.: STN-52-003 January 15,1997 Document Control Desk U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: T. R. QUAY

' SUBJEQ DRAFF WCAP-14822, AP600 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES 4

SUPPORTING NRC REVIEW OF AP600 SSAR SECTIONS 18.2 AND

18.8 REFERENCES

1. WCAP-12601 REVISION 19, AP600 PROGRAM OPERATING PROCEDURES.

2. NSD-NRC-96-4874, PROGRESS TOWARD RESOLVING ELEMENT 2 AND 4 OPEN ITEMS FOR AP600,12/16/%.

3. LEITER FROM NRC TO WESTINGIIOUSE (IIUFFMAN TO LIPARULO), COMMENTE ON OPEN ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITII 111b AP600 SAFEfY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM (SPDS),

12/19/%.

4. LEFFER FROM NRC TO WESTINGIIOUSE (IIUFFMAN TO LIPARULO), COMMENTS ON AP600 RELAlED OPEN ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITII FI EMENT 1 OF THE IIUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING PROGn AM REVIEW MODEL 1 (IIFEPRM),12/20/%

5. LEITER FROM NRC TO WESTINGIIOUSE (IlUlTMAN TO t 4 LIPARULO), COMMENTS ON AP600 RELATED OPEN ffEMS ASSOCIATED WITII ELEMINF 7 OF T!IE HUMAN FACFORS ENGINEERING PROGRAM REVIEW MODEL (IIFEPRM),12/20/%.

Dear Mr. Quay:

This letter is written to address DSER Chapter 18 open items for NUIEG-0711 Elements 1 and 7 which are related to information fiom Reference 1. Attached is a dmfl of WCAP-14822 which is comprised of the pertinent procedures from Reference 1 and is en:ated to facilitate hTC review of  ;

AP600 SSAR Sections 18.2 and 18.8. The NRC is requested to review the attachments to this letter to -

ensum they contain enough information for the NRC to consider Westinghouse activities complete for the following DSER open items:

/

9701290349 970115 r eu\L PDR ADOCK 05200003 V A PDR P(_,U /

=

2

i e ,

NSD-NRC-97-4938 January 15,1997 DCP/NRC0704 DSER Item OITS # Status 18.2.3.3-1 1305 WCAP-14822 will complete Westinghouse activities for this item.

18.2.3.3-2 1306 WCAP-14822 will complete Westinghouse activities for this item.

18.2.3.3-3 1307 WCAP-14822 will complete Westinghouse actisities for this item.

18.2.3.3-4 1308 WCAP-14822 will complete Westinghouse activities for this item.  !

1 18.2.3.3-5 1309 WCAP-14822 will complete Westinghouse activities for this item.

18.2.3.3-6 1310 Inclusion of the attached SSAR Section 18.2.3.5 markup in the SSAR and WCAP-14822 will complete Westinghouse activities for this item.

18.2.3.4-1 1311 The NRC is reviewing the Design Issues Tracking System information submitted in Reference 2. Assuming acceptability of that information, ,

submittal of WCAP-14822 will complete Westinghouse activities for this l item.

18.8.1.3-1 1354 WCAP-14822, and closure of OfN item 1356 will complete Westinghouse 4 activities for this item. I I

18.8.1.3-3 1356 Inclusion of the attached SSAR Section 18.8.1.9 markup in the SSAR and revision to WCAP-143% Revision 1 to identify workload as a performance i measure for concept test 4 (see attached markup) will complete Westinghouse l activities for this item.

18.8.1.3-7 1360 WCAP-14822 will complete Westinghouse activities for this item.

18.8.1.3-8 1361 WCAP-14822 will complete Westinghouse activities for this item.

Please note that this letter does not address NRC comments received in Refen nce 3 for the AP600 Safety Parameter Display System, which is also part of NUREG-0711 Element 7. That DSER open item is 18.8.2.3-1 and will be resolved separate from this letter.

The following table lists the Quality Assurance pmcedures from Reference I which are contained in the attached drafl WCAP.1he NRC reviewed these procedures during an audit on April 5 and 6, 1995, at the Westinghouse oflice in Rockville, Maryland. For each of these procedures, the table provides the procedure number, revision number reviewed by the NRC, the current revision, and an I

explanation of changes. In addition to these procedures, the attached WCAP contains a markup of the AP600 Program Procedure Matrix which provides some information related to design organizations l external to Westinghouse.

10 % 4 1

I

' . l l

1 , ,

l NSD-NRC-97-4538 January 15,1997 l DCP/NRC07N ,

i l

l In summary, the NRC is requested to review the attached dmfl WCAP and advise Westinghouse as to l whether or not it meets the NRC needs with respect to review of AP600 SSAR Sections 18.2 and  !

18.8. This WCAP is expected to be released as Revision 0 in February 1997. Please contact i Robin K. Nydes (412) 374-4125 if you have any questions regarding this transmittal. l.

1 u ///'

Brian A. McIntyre, Manager  ;

Advanced Plant Safety and Licensing t

/jml  !

i enclosure i

e cc: Jim Bongara, NRC - 11, lE ,

Bill IIuffman, NRC - lL, 5E l John 01lara, BNL - IL,1E j Jim Iliggins, BNL - IL, IE ,

Meena Mutyala, Westinghouse - 11, IE b

r I

E 1

i s

1 i

! 4 l  !

l 3046A I

l

[,

AP600 Audited Current Description of Changes Procedure Revision Rev'sion Number Number, Number,  !

Date Date AP 3.1 1, 2/28/91 2 Revision 2 is a basic re-write to make reference to the SSD Writers Guide and to clarify the SSD preparation and revision process.

AP 3.2 3, 3/11/94 6 Revision 4 adds responsibilities for Design Certification Project Manager, adds requirements for reporting for CCB members that are absent or not represented at a CCB meeting, for design changes due to incorrect design, for Class I and 2 Design Certification impact Review, and for concurrence of APSL Manager for Class 2 DCPs. Revised Engineer's responsibilities to ensure review of impacted areas in addition to those identified in the DCP. Revised criteria in tables 1,2, and 3 for determining DCP Class.

Added Table 4 to identify systems that are analyzed in PRA.

Revision 5 clarifies the responsibilities of the DCP initiator, Westinghouse Project Manager, CCB Secretary, and DCP ,

Administrator; clarifies the process for DCPs submitted by organizations external to ATBA; clarifies the process when DCPs are withdrawn, not approved, or when impactees do not concur. It also adds new options for dispositioning DCPs and a flowchart to describe the DCP process.

Revision 6 eliminates the use of" Advanced DCPs" and incorporates a 10CFR50.59 type change control. .

AP 3.5 1, 8/9/91 2 (draft) Although Revision 2 is not currently available, it will include a Human Factors Engineering checklist similar i to that previously contained in WCAP-9817 (which is obsolete).

i AP 3.6 2, 3/11/94 2 rt'a AP 3.7 0, 2/8/91 0 n/a AP 3.12 0, I (draft) Revision I will be a basic re-write to reflect functional requirements rather than details which would require future updates (e.g.,

10/31/91 deleting reference to SQL-Link, Interlink. VAX, etc.)

AP 3.14 0, 0 rtt a 10/31/91 AP 7.2 0, 8/9/91 I Revision 1 is a basic re-write to prescribe the process for control of supplier submittals.

i I

L.__-- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ - - - _-

Iht$$ bt 'th -$'htt f(blehLUcG *$'hp h 6 f $ Y 6Mbcbrl+( Q pr &l

)

18. man Factors Engineering o rw1 % biats . The awfues Aeleren u- (o +h&

[

SNuite +h,r lev' n JLwebbia0 a I . ir lhesc <rFwd f 4,Vll % b  %

!LSC esdesign f tP .t fb co n-}e subcontractor organizations are mg regaf performed l Or) Activities withml0 accordince with them. ank fof c l 1 written procedures of those organizations Effective implementation of each orga

I quality assurance program is monitored y their respective intemal audit programs, and by j l supplier audits. See Section 17.3 r quality assurance requirements associated with I subcontractor human factors engine ng design efforts.

I

} l 18.2.4 Human Factors Engineering Issues Tracking

, I

' l l A tracking system is used to address human factors issues that are known to the industry j l and/or identified throughout the life cycle of the human factors engineering / human system 1 j l interfaces design, development, and evaluation. The tracking system enables the )

j i documentation and tracking of issues that need to be addressed at some later date.

! l

{ l Tracking of human factors engineering issues is accomplished within the framework of the l l l overall plant design process. In this manner, human factors engineering issues are addressed d i in the same way as those for other disciplines.

! i l l The design issues tracking system database is used to track AP600 design issues to resolution,  ;

l including human factors engineering issues. This database receives input from the following l j l three sources

! I I I . Operating experience review I

• Design reviews I

• Design issues associated with the design of the man-machine interface / human s)

. I interface and the operations and control centers system l

1 For each design issue entered into the database, the actions taken to address the issue an I final resolution of the issue are documented.

i I j l The human factors issues in the operating experience review report (Reference 1) tha j l identified as rt quiring further consideration by the AP600 design are entered into the de t

I issues tracking system database.

I l "Ihe design review process also provides input to the design issues tracking system database.

I For each design issue identified through the design review process, an action item is initiated.

I Action items.are entered into the design issues tracking system database. Human factors I action items from design reviews are included in the database. For preliminary and I intermediate design reviews, some action items may be deferred to a more appropriate, l subsequent design review. The responsibility of entering design review action items into the i design issues tracking system database is assigned to the manager responsible for the system I reviewed.

l l Human factors engineering design issues directly associated with the AP600 human system I interfaces and the operations and control centers system (such as the main control room, I remote shutdown facility, and technical support center) are entered into the design issues I tracking system database. These are design issues that are identified by the human system Revision: 9 T Westinghouse 18.2-17 August 9,1996

a

18. Iluman Factors Engineering -

I Figure 18.2-3 provides a program milestone schedule of human factors engineering tasks I showing relationships between human factors engineering elements and activities, products, I and reviews. Intemal design reviews are performed at various points throughout the design I process.

I i 18.2.6 Combined License Information 1

l The Combined License applicant referencing the AP600 certified design is responsible for the I emergency operations facility design including specification of the location.

. I i 18.2.7 References I

i 1. NUREG-0711, " Human Factors Engineering Program Review Model," U.S. hTC.

I I 2. WCAP-14645, " Human Factors Engineering Operating Experience Review Report For l The AP600 Nuclear Power Plant."

l l 3. WCAP-14694, " Designers Input to Determination of the AP600 Main Control Room l Staffing Level."

l l 4. WCAP-14644, "AP600 Functional Requirements Analysis and Allocation."

l I 5. Reason, J.T., " Human Error," Cambridge, U.K., Cambridge University Press,1990.

A0 (o, WC&>IggQed: ~yx 9 g f b Quo > {} m m Q Q AffuM NAC lbd3 M/ lob 554g s.fse

/ f, Z- / /B,9 #  ; Febe ar 1997.

1 l

4 l

l i

l

, Revision: 9 l 3 Westinghouse 18.2-19 August 9,1996

_ _ _ ._ ._ - ~. . _. _ _ _ .. __

s Test Method:

yc A f - M316 The participant will be asked to locate a particular piece of information requi) navigation through the displays. Specific information requests will be defined to exercise v available navigation mechanisms.

Testbed Characteristics:

This test will be perfomed in the high-fidelity simulator at Waltz .

Type of Materials:

The test will be performed using physical displays and possibly function; i displays for the plant simulated in the high-fidelity simulator at Waltz Mill. He displays AP600-specific, will be representative of the AP600 Functional Requirements for Performance Measures:

To assess the performance issues, the following will be recorded:

Whether the information is located Response times The navigation path taken to get to the target display he navigation path length to get to the target information will be compared to the oprim path identified a priori by the designer.

In addition, subjective judgments will be elicited from the participants regarding the adequ display coding conventions and navigation mechanism f6 ap; 3en Ad g[4 Outcome:

his test will assess the adequacy of the AP600 Functional Requirements for display coding and navigation.

Concept Test 5:

Coordination of physical and functional displays Issue:

This test addresses the use and coordination of physical and functional displays supp situation awareness and response planning (Evaluation Issue 6), including the types of informati expected to be drawn from physical and functional displays, When these displays should be acce and how physical and functional displays are to be coordinated.

Specific issues include whether the workstation physical and functional displays support the in:

Distinguishing situations where physical displays should be exammed from situations where functional displays should be examined Understanding interrelationships among systems and processes Assessing whether currently active processes are performing correctly mA3123w.wpf:Ib400196

$ 45 L

' " E

18. Humaa Factrrs Engineering 1

- . 1 l

4 1 The human system interface resources are chosen based upon utility requirements and revbw l 1 of operating experience. The goal of the human system. interface design is to provide the I operators with effective means for acquiring and understanding plant data and execu'.mg i actions to control the plant's processes and equipment. Through implementation of the hu nan _

l I system interface design process, the identified AP600 human system interface resources are i developed. The man-in-the-loop concept testing is used to determine the adequacy of 'he I human system interface resource As shown in Figure 18.2-3, the results of the con.cepi i testing are used to refine the desia r.. ,

I i l Design attematives for a feature within an human system interface resource (such as the use l I of a mouse, trackball, or touchscreen for soft controls) are evaluated. A decision is made  !

I based upon evaluation methods including human factors / trade-off studies, reviews of nuclear l l industry operating experience or reviews of other industry experience,' man-in-the-loop concept I testing, and utility input. The basis and rationale for the decisions are provided in the I functional design documentation. p . : y ; 7 g. y 4 , , , ,,g .

I e a, ,

i 18.8.1.9 Humaan System Interface Characteristics: Identification of High Workload Situations I ,,., _

n ,.,

i Identification of high operator workload situations 'and their consequent changes in operator I response times or likelihood of operator error, is a usability issue.lPotential impact on I operator workload is a criterion in selecting the human performance_ issues identified in i Section 18.11.

I ch. ,. .

T. M. s n .

I Identification of high-workload situations through analytic techmques and part-task I simulations, is part of the human factors engineering program (Section 18.5 on Task Analysis I and Reference 9 on the AP600 man .ih,-the-loop test plan). ,.dg{]'; _

I hn tw a ,t. -

. m 3.o .3 s n. .

I Reference 9 includes concept tests to assess the impact of secondary tasks associated with i I

l display system navigation and management. *Ihe series of concept tests include collection of l data designed to characterize the , quality and severity of'workloadESubjective ~ '" workload I assessment techniques are used. '

I

% a '. U+

Use oa k

of Worb\b)beas&Altuf uremen eckniques'dW<.

,. d a Eg ctk1 hh hAS &lk f et&I I i 'br Cf l As part of task analysis activities (Section T8.3), anaiytic approacnes are tised to estimate I workload. Analytic methods include the use of computer-based models of cognitive responses ~

I to control room events. This tool or functionally similar tools'are 'used to s'upport workload I analysis. g .,g . S. ., , ; s((,, '

l

• I Usability Guidance I , t,q w s., w -. g .. a. .u a. ,

1 Design guideline documents are developed that synthesize results of re,, views of the relevant l l

l human system interface literature, experience in nuclear power plants and related industries, l and results of in-house concept tests. These documents contrib'titelo the design basis for I design of human system interface resources.' For example, the use'of soft controls in the j

l design of the AP600 human system interface builds'on existing human system interface

- ~ . . - . . . . - . - . . - . . - . . _.

Revision: 9

- T We d ighouse of.18.8-9 :7(Augh 9p y , iy- w, ,

1 l

18. H: man Fact:rs Engineeri:g p

I 18.8.2.6 Minimum Information I

l The AP600 human system interface resources used to address the Safety Parameter Display l System requirements are the alarm system, plant information system, and the computerized I procedure system. The AP600 human system interface displays sufficient information to I determine plant safety status with respect to the Safety Parameter Display System safety I functions. The safety functions and respective parameters presented in Table 2. of I

). Reference is used as a starting point for the AP600. The human system interface design I implementation plan is described in subsection 18.8.1 and includes the integration of Safety ]

I Parameter Display Sy' stem requirements into the human system interface. The Safety ~

l Parameter Display System design issue of " minimum information" is tracked by the human I factors engineering issues tracking system.

~

I l 18.8.2.7 Procedures and Training , . .

l As stated in Sections 13.2 and 13.5, the development of training programs and plant I procedures are the responsibility of the Combined License applicant. Reference 30 describes I how training insights are passed from the designer to the Combined License applicant-.

I Reference 31 provides input to the Combined License applicant for the development of plant ,

I I operating procedures. l g

- <q - em .

~ ~

' #~ d I

g 18.8.3 Operation and Control Centers dc *f '

j i

l The human system interface includes the design of the' operation and control centers (operation I and control centers). The design of each of thek Eontrol centers is conducted using the l l

1 human system interface implementation plan presented in subsection 18.8.1. The mission for 1 each of the operation and control centers in the AP600 is provided in the next eight subsec-I tions. Coupled with each mission statement is a brief description of the major tasks and I design features that are supported by that center. l- '

%a:m , a..

l I 18.8.3.1 Main Control Room Mission and Major Tasks - -

9 3.,jU <- a, l The mission of the main control room is to provide a, seismically qualified habitable and I comfortable location for housing the resources for a limited number of humans to monitor and I control the plant processes.

x ._,

3

-- L. - ~ The major tasks performed in the main control room include monitoring, supervjsing, manag . __

l ing, and controlling those aspects of the plant pmcesses related to the thermodynamic and I energy conversion processes under normal, abnormal, and emergency conditions. Operating .

i staff can monitor, supervise, manage, and control processes that have a real-time requirement I for protecting the health and safety of operating personnel. The main control room supports I the operator's decision-making process, and promotes the interaction with other plant I personnel, while preventing distractions by non-operating personnel. The main control room I provides the interfacing resources between the operation of the plant and the maintenance of I the plant. Its areas include the main control area, the switching and tagging area, the shift Revision: 9 August 9,1996 1818 16 4 '

• T Westighouse

- 18. Humm Fectrrs Engineering Q  !

l 7. NUREG/CR-6501, " Human Factors Engineering Guidelines for the Review of Advanced I Alarm Systems," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., September j l 1994.

l

. I 8. U.S. Department of Defense, " Human Engineering Guidelines for Management l Information Systems," DOD-HDBK-761 A, Office of Management and Budget, I Washington, D.C.,1990. I I

l 9. WCAP-14396, " Man-in-The-Loop Test Plan Description.", Nefsm h In fN7 l 10. AP600 Document Number OCS-J1-008, " Effects of Control Lag and Interaction Mode ,

I on Operators' Use of Soft Controls," September 23,1994. l 1 .

I 11. Hoecker, D.G. and Roth, E. M., " Man-Machine Design and Analysis System (MIDAS) l l Applied to a Computer-Based Procedure-Aiding System," Westinghouse STC .

I Repon ISW5- CHICR-P2, May 25,1994; also in " Proceedings of the Human Factors I and Ergonomics Society 35th Annual Meeting," October 1995.

I 1 12. Hoecker, D.G. and Roth, E. M., " MIDAS in the Control Room: Applying a Flight Deck l Cognitive Modeling Tool to Another Domain," Westinghouse STC Report i ISW5-CHICR-P3, September 26, 1994; also in RAF Institute of Research and 1 Development, " Proceedings of the 'Ihird Intemational Workshop on Human-Computer l Teamwork," Cambridge, UK, September 26,1994. .

I l 13. Roth, E. M. and Hoecker, D. G., " Human Factors Issues Associated with Soft Contro!s-1 Design Goals and Availacle Guidance," 1994.

I I 14. Beranek, : . ~., Revised Criteria for Noise in Buildings," Noise Control, Vol. 3, Nr.1, I p.19ff.

I l l 15. Grandjean, E., " Fitting the Task to the Man: An Ergonomic Approach," London: Taylor I and Francis Ltd.,1981. I I

I 16. Van Cott and Kinkade, " Human Engineering Guide to Equipment Design," Washington l D.C.: U.S. Govemment Printing Office,1972. l 1

1 17. Electric Power Research Institute, " Human Factors Guide for NPP Control Room i Development," Final Repon on Project 1637-1. EPRI NP-3659,1984. l l 1 l 18. Electric Power Research Institute, " Advanced Light Water Reactor Utility Requirements l l Document, Vol. III. ALWR Passive Plant, Chapter 10: Man-Machine Interface Systems," l 1 1 Revision 6 December 1993.

I I 19. Intemational Electrotechnical Commission, " Design for Control Rooms of Nuclear Power I l Plants," IEC Standard 964.1989. l l

l Revision: 9 August 9,1996 { Westingh00S8

w_

18. Human Fectors Engineering l 20. International Electrotechnical Commission, " Operating Conditions for Industrial-Process I Measurement and Control Equipment," IEC Standard 654-1, 1979.

I I 21. Proctor, D H. and Hughes, J. P., " Chemical Hazards of the Workplace," 1978.

1 I 22. 29CFR1910. " Occupational Safety and Health Standards," 1975.

l l 23. WCAP-14651, " Integration of Human Reliability Analysis With Human Factors l Engineering Design Implementation Plan." fev6&n f., ep fj g ,

I 24. WCAP-14401, " Programmatic Level Description of the AP600 Human Factors l Verification and Validation Plan."

l 1 25. WCAP-14695, "Desenption of the Westinghouse Operator Decision Making Model and 1 Function Based Task Analysis Methodology j " higgin  %[ fjjb I 26. 10 CFR 50.34 (f) (2) (iv).

I I 27. NUREG-07,37, Supplement 1; "Requiremerits for Emergency Response Capability."

I l

f) %

28. NUREG-06,96, " Functional Criteria For Emergency Response Facilities."

l I 29. NUREG-0711, " Human Factors Engineering Progum Review Model," July 1994.

I l 30. WCAP-14655, " Designer's Input for the Training of the Human Factors Engineering i Verification and Validation Personnel."

I l 31. WCAP-14690, " Designer's Input to Procedure Development for the AP600."

I l 32. NUREG-1342,"A Status Report Regarding Industry Implementation of Safety Parameter i Display Systems."

l I 33. Rasmussen, J.,1986, "Infonnation Processing and Human-Machine Ir;teraction, An l Approach to Cognitive Engineering,".(New York, North-Holland).

I l 34. O'Hara, J. M. and Wachtel, J.,1991, " Advanced Control Room Evaluation: General I Approach and Rationale" in " Proceedings of the Human Factors 35th Annual Meeting,"

I pp.1243-1247, (Santa Monica, CA, Human Factors Society).

I i l 35. Woods, D. D, and Roth, E. M.,1988, " Cognitive Systems Erigineering," Helander, M.

I (ed.), " Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction," pp.3-43, (New York, NY, Elsevier i Science Publishing Co., Inc.).

I i 36. Woods, D. D., Wise, J. A., and Hanes, L. F.,1982, " Evaluation of Safety Parameter 1 Display Concepts," NP-2239, (Palo Alto, CA, Electric Power Research Institute).

Revision: 9 18.8-25 August 9,1996 y Westinghouse

18. Human Factors Engineertg i 37. Woods, D. D. and Roth, E. M.,1986, "'Ihe Role of Cognitive Modeling in Nuclear i Power Plant Personnel Activities," NUREG-CR-4532, Volume 1, (Washington, D.C.,

l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission).

l l 38. Woods, D. D., Roth, E. M., Stubler, W. F., and Mumaw, R. J.,1990, " Navigating l Through Large Display Networks in Dynamic Control Applications" in " Proceedings of I the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting," pp. 396 399, (Santa Monica, CA, I Human Factors Society).

I I 39. Reason, J. T.,1990, " Human Error," (Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press).

l .

l 40. Stubler, W. F., Roth, E. M., and Mumaw, R. J.,1991 " Evaluation Issues for Computer-

! Based Control Rooms" in " Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual l Meeting," pp. 383-387, (Santa Monica, CA, Human Factors Society).

I . , . .

I 41. Woods, D. D.,1982, " Application of Safety Parameter Display Evaluation Project to l Design of Westinghouse Safety Parameter Display System " Appendix E to " Emergency I Response Facilities Design and V & V Process," WCAP-10170, submitted to the U.S.

I Nuclear Regulatory Commission in support of their review of the Westinghouse Generic l Safety Parameter Display System Non-Proprietary, (Pittsburgh, PA, Westinghouse 1 Electric Corp.). 1 I

l 42. U.S. Department of Defense,1989, " Military Standard 1472D; Human Engineering ,

1 Design Criteria for Military Systems, Equipment and Facilities," (Washington, D.C., U.S.

I Department of Defense). - -

m; A.,

1 . w , ,

I 43. American National Standards Institute,1988, " ANSI /HF 100-1988, American National l Standard for Human Factors Engineering of Visual Display Terminal Workstations,"

1 (Santa Monica, CA, Human Factors Society, American National Standards Institute).

I .

l 44. WCAP-14694, " Designer's Input To Determination of the AP600 Main Control Room i Staffing Level."

l l 45. WCAP-14701, " Methodology and Results of Defining Evaluation Issues for the AP600 1 - 5 Human System Interface Design Test Program."

&&,Nd.f0sk.

Dif$qNAk

& , k DO( W Y t%fth h]! d1 kA.?0 0*

i f sk e = M 9'ICla 0 i y U praJ

% & u9H.

NH K IVA , /m15>L /%kM; hob y )lbf  %),llng h 0 lit n hsw

\ '

db o 6 e,B. M d T, 1 , Hyg a y " % g j e k k w a p u ,J) m e n g

+akye: AsJsyIar.Le(linb,'(-)d.c pi i ',,y mM urwsa" A '

N08o % N/.U m e & N, l%k

• Alu a s Revisiom 9 b^ 17 .)

T Westinghouse  !

' August 9,1996 18.8-26