Latest revision as of 08:39, 12 May 2020

Text

Detailed Control Room Design Review Program Plan
	ML20098G329
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	09/27/1984
From:	Jackie Cook, Hall D, Victory H; ILLINOIS POWER CO.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20098G325	List: ML20098G324; ML20098G329;
References
	RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737 PROC-840927, NUDOCS 8410040380
	Download: ML20098G329 (149)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:. _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM PLAN vD q z-In

            - 00 ,immin CLINTON POWER STATION ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY g8Ao28888J883llA

APPROVAL Recomended Approval: P Plant Manager Recomended Approval: hbcu /.-rV [ddde 9/f/e/ ageff ,NSED Approved: Vice President 9 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 i ii

REVISION LOG Revision Pages No. Date Description Affected PREL. A 7/30/84 Initial Issue -- ~ PREL. B 8/24/84 Second Issue General PREL. C 9/05/84 Third Issue General REV. 0 9/19/84 NRC Issue General i 1.5/091984 "~ VAXC/85 y

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE APPR0 VAL............................................................ iii REVISION L0G........................................................ v TABLE OF C0NTENTS................................................... vii l L I ST OF FI GU RES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix LIST OF TABLES...................................................... x LIST OF APPENDICES.................................................. xi ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS LISTED ALPHABETICALLY BY ACRONYMS........ xii ACRONYMS' AND ABBREVIATIONS LISTED ALPHABETICALLY BY DEFINITION...... xiv

1.0 INTRODUCTION

................................................... 1-1 1.1- General Comments.......................................... 1-1 1.2 0bjectives................................................ 1-4 1.3 Pl a nt De s c ri p ti o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5 1.4 Defini tion o f Control Room. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6 1.5 Previous Human Engineering Reviews........................ 1-7 1.6 Control Room Status....................................... 1-7 1.7 Fu l l - S c a l e Mo c k - u p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7 1.8 Simulator................................................. 1-7 2.0 MANAGEMENT STAFFING AND PLANNING............................... 2-1 2.1 General Comments.......................................... 2-1 2.2 Planning.................................................. 2-2 2.3 Ma na g ement a n d S ta f fi n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3.0 DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REV IEW METH000 LOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 General................................................... 3.2 Operating Experience Review............................... 3.3 Control Room Inventory.................................... 3- 1 3.4 Control Room Survey....................................... 3-13 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 vii

_ _ _ _ _ ..g__._ -. ._ TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) s PAGE 3.5 E0P and DCRDR Integrated System Function and Task Analysis 3-15 l 3.6 E0P and DCRDR Integrated Veri fication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20 3.7 E0P and DCRDR Integrated Val ida tion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23 4.0 DCRDR ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION........................... 4-1 4.1 0bjective................................................ 4-2 4.2 Methodology.............................................. 4-2 5.0 DOCUMENTATION USED TO SUPPORT THE DCRDR....................... 5-1 5.1 Ge ne ral Comme n t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.2 Documentation Generated by the DCRDR Process............. 5-1 5.3 Documentation System and Contro1......................... 5-2 6.0

SUMMARY

....................................................... 6-1 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 ) viii l

1 i LIST OF FIEURES

  <          FIGURES                                                 TITLE                                                   PAGE
            'l-1                         Aerial Photograph of Clinton Power Station                                             1-8 1-2                         Layout of Main Control Room                      .                                     1-9 2-1                         Overview of DCRDR Process                                                              2-8
            '2-2                         Overall DCRDR Organization                                                             2-9 2-3                         Formulation of the DCRDR Task Structure                                             2-10 2-4                         Schedule of DCRDR Activities                                                        2-11

1- . Typical Inventory Sheet 3-27 )

3-2. Sample Compliance Checklist 3-28 l 3-3 Sample Reference /Connent Form 3-29 ~ 3-4 E0P and DCRDR Integrated System Function 3-30 and Task Analysis 3 Major Plant Systems Addressed and Utilized 3-31 3-6 Sample E0P Flow Chart 3-32 3-7 Typical Photomosaic Mock-up 3-33 3-8 SFTA Data Base Record Definition 3-34 ~ 3-9 Typical E0P & DCRDR Integrated SFTA Data Sheet #1 3-35 3-10 Typical. EOP & DCRDR Integrated SFTA Data Sheet #2 3-36

             .3-11                       Typical E0P & DCRDR Integrated SFTA Data Sheet #3                                   3-37 3-12                       Sample Operational Sequence Diagram                                                 3-38 3-13                       Typical Traffic Link Diagram                                                        3-39

,_ 3-14 E0P and DCRDR Integrated Verification 3-40

3 Sample Detailed Control Room Design Review 3-41 Verification / Validation Reference / Comment Form 3-16 E0P.and DCRDR Integrated Validation 3-42 4 Sample Human Engineering Observation Assessment Form 4-16 4-2 Assessment and Implementation Flow Diagram 4-17 4-3 HE0 Processing 4-18 4-4 Selection of Design Improvements 4-19 4-5 Sample Master tog Sheet 4-20 4-6 Sample. Enhancement Suitability Checklist 4-21 5-1 Sample Outline of Executive Summary 5-3 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 ix

    -. .- ,           -__,-,.---...e,--        ,-_,-,mm_-.,,. w w. ,_.m,---    .,.o--r--,_,m.,.,-%   ,, ,,,_-ye, ,,-,---.wre-,-v .. < w m        w,..

LIST OF TABLES TABLE TITLE PAGE 2-1 DCRDR Design Review Team Members 2-5 and Associated Task Assignments 2-2 Level of Effort (man-hours) of Various Discipline 2-7 Groups in Performing the DCRDR for Clinton Power Station 4-1 Criteria for Evaluating HE0s 4-11 4-2 HE0 Plant Impact Evaluation Criteria 4-13 4-3 HE0 Resoluation Criteria 4-14 1.5/091984 I VAXC/85 X

w e l LIST OF APPENDICES l

 . APPENDIX A - QUALIFICATION OF DESIGN REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS APPENDIX B --TYPICAL DCRDR PROCEDURE APPENDIX C - TYPICAL OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW QUESTIONS APPENDIX D - TYPICAL FILING INDEX 4

1.5/091984 VAXC/85 Xi

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS LISTED ALPHABETICALLY BY ACRONYMS ADS Automatic Depressurization System APRM Average Power Range Monitor ARM Area Radiation Monitor ATAF Above Top of Active Fuel B0P Balance of Plant BWR Boiling Water Reactor BWROG Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group CL Checklist CPS Clinton Power Station CR Control Room CRD Control Rod Drive CRI Control Room Inventory CRS Control Room Survey CRVIS Containment and Reactor Vessel Isolation System DBMS Data Base Management System DCRDR Detailed Control Room Design Review DW Drywell E0P Emergency Operating Procedure E0P V&V E0P Verification and Validation EPRI Electric Power Research Institute ERCIP Emergency Response Capability Implementation Plan FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report GE General Electric HEDs iluman Engineering Discrepancies HE0s Human Engineering Observations HPCS High Pressure Core Spray HVAC Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning INP0 Institute of Nuclear Power Operations l IRM Intermediate Range Monitor LER Licensee Event Report 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 xii

q ,x.. g .?a. ., ;

                                                         ,.t.       .c,   ..-.~        : c .   .v:. . - ~ - ..c-             .:     . . , - r r -   - 'i ~

q 7 .v.: . n . .. w

l y. :_ .

n LPCI Low Pressure Coolant Injection Na e.,'.

                                                                                                                                                               ;,<k LPCS                             Low Pressure Core Spray s.

LPRM Local Power Range Monitor , j ' f' 4.

   -                         LRW                              Liquid Radwaste                                                                                     f.- gn.
 ,3

LVL Level ?.:&-

                                                                                                                                                              . .yi.,        . . *

.,s . MSIV Main Steam Isolation Valve ": 1? - - NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission 'jf, y 7- NSSC Nuclear Stea.n Supply System ( . q t OER Operating Experience Review (, . g. .

\-

+. PC Primary Containment l;'e e N

,- g i.

i PDA Preliminary Design Assessment , t . r., -

                                                                                                                                                               ,:        g f1

+.- P&ID Piping and Instrumentation Drawing .,Y.. PRM Process Radiation Monitor QA.y c... g' 4 . . . , PWR Power 9 'J

       .                                                                                                                                                      s.                           :

C.; RBM Rod B1ock Monitcr T.; ., @ f RCIC Reactor Core Isolation Cooling J.. T . .

[ RF Refueling l ~c. ' .. l ./

RHR Residual Heat Removal I-if" j p..- i a;- RPC Rod Pattern Control

                                                                                                                                                                           . . .f.
        . .                                                                                                                                                       M RPS                             Reactor Protection System                                                                          -,Yf

,[ . .%

RPV Reactor Pressure Vessel f. w,s . RWM Rod Worth Minimizer t n. t. [~' r SBGT SFTA Standby Gas Treatment System Function and Task Analysis [.. g? l s' : 4.ty.T ,'w; SLCS Standby Liquid Control System ) *g%; +

                                                                                                                                                                            '*c
                                                                                                                                                                           .\.           y Y .-.

SOE Selected Operational Event !a' i;**-a. [ SOER Significant Operating Experience Report ; yf.7 (. SP Suppression Pool f.[f;l,{ v... Safety Parameter Display System /. SPDS j 9 ;.; . $< SRM Startup Range Monitor _ j;; p, y SRV Safety Relief Valve hg. r a ..

=-                            TAF                              Top of Active Fuel                                                                                    "N,
                                                                                                                                                                      .,                 w

.i.= TBCCW Turbine Building Closed Cooling Water ;. 11 1 '. - . WS Service Water y. e ;p.'.p 2y :-

, , J,("; 14'. '<

?.                                                                                                                                                            % ; ,. -   a
                                                                                                                                                                             . 9. ..

1.5/091984 Y,4.. # t VAXC/85 ..O. 6. . i xiii D4.T ' -

         ,,                                                                                                                                                    .p ;,. .

s.sy,; ~ ca.. ; ; x .w:

                                                   .o,,            ax,m                       n y. ... .

E ?$ ' ~: r .s . :. g s . w , a. , .a.

                                                                                                                .           a p ,. ,n . ~ ; ~ . ; . : m; -
                     .   +-['

5 , lJ fI . [ll . * */ ..

                                                                                           ..   .' "       f . .. p , j .:I     ,'._. % ? . .
                                                                                                                                ,                  *?' ) . ^; . ...

ACRONYMS AND AB8REVIATIONS LISTED ALPHABETICALLY BY DEFINITIONS Above Top of Active Fuel ATAF Area Radiation Monitor ARM Automatic Depressurization System ADS Average Power Range Monitor APRM Balance of Plant B0P Boiling Water Reactor BWR Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group BWROG Checklist CL Clinton Power Station CPS Containment and Reactor Vessel Isolation System CRVIS Control Rod Drive CRD Control Room CR Control Room Inventory CRI Control Room Survey CRS Data Base Management System DBMS Detailed Control Room Design Review DCRDR Drywell DW Electric Power Research Institute EPRI Emergency Operating Procedure E0P Emergency Response Capability Implementation Plan ERCIP E0P Verification and Validation E0P V&V Final Safety Analysis Report FSAR General Electric GE Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning HVAC High Pressure Core Spray HPCS Human Engineering Discrepancies HEDs Human Engineering Observation HE0s Institute of Nuclear Power Operations INP0 Intermediate Range Monitor IRM 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 xiv i

Level LVL Licensee Event Report LER Liquid Radwaste LRW Local Power Range Monitor LPRM Low Pressure Coolant Injection LPCI Low Pressure Core Spray LPCS Main Steam Isolation Valve MSIV I Nuclear Regulatory Comission NRC Nuclear Steam Supply System NSSS Operating Experience Review OER Piping and Instrumentation Drawing P&ID A l Power PWR Preliminary Design Assessment PDA Primary Containment PC Process Radiation Monitor PRM Reactor Core Isolation Cooling RCIC Reactor Pressure Vessel RPV Reactor Protection System RPS Refueling RF Rod Block Monitor RBM Rod Pattern Control RPC Rod Worth Minimizer RWM Safety Parameter Display System SPDS Safety Relief Valve SRV Selected Operational Event SOE Service Water WS Significant Operating Experience Report SOER Standby Gas Treatment SBGT Standby Liquid Control System SLCS Startup Range Monitor SRM - Suppression Pool SP System Function and Task Analysis SFTA Top of Active Fuel TAF Turbine Building Closed Cooling Water TBCCW 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 xV

                                                                                               .,i I

y,, [.

                                                                                >. w    . .

h, s, bk

1.0 INTRODUCTION

                           *~ T I, h E. ' .

1.1 GENERAL COMENTS m 6A ;- s .- - N Q. n'- N This report describes the Illinois Power Company's plan to perform a Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) of its Clinton Power Station. i@E 4 c.<

                                                                                                 .4 r s The purpose of this DCRDR is to identify and implement control room design     g,[K {

improvements that provide assurance for meeting plant safety and L.' N4

                                                                                    , - 1 availability objectives.                                                       Q<F s              r 9
                                                                                 ;ge. .               s y                   ,:

The need for control room design reviews has been well documented by the ff .jF

                                                                              .' .r       . .

NRC as a result of the investigations of the Three Mile Island accident. J <. f " The principal areas of concern identified included: non-compliance of .,%~

                                                                                    .      .t .
                                                                                                 .4's control room facilities with human factors principles, deficiencies in            .

W. t v.7 f providing operator presented information and inadequate operating ye ${l, , procedures, h+- 9 j Y.h 43c.:; . The need for this DCRDR is required by the NRC as follows: 7,. .e6: M . is 4 o Item I.D.1, " Control Room Design Reviews," of the NRC Action Plan y,h (NUREG-0660) developed as a result of the TMI-2 accident states U;h.Q that the operating licensees and applicants for operating licenses $.T.. L 9 will be required to perform a Detailed Control Room Des.gn Review ..- i . ;j 1..( (DCRDR) to identify and correct design discrepancies. h .f,, Q': &.. o Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737, dated December 17, 1982, further _h,. . .y clarified the DCRDR requirement in NUREG-0660. As a result of 4% A s- &., Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737, each applicant or licensee is required .t,. vf

                                                                                   . .. ;. y .

to conduct their DCRDR on a schedule negotiated with the NRC. . ~.d-[ s , .

                                                                                   .3.; 4 >
                                                                                   'Y J.. .-? j-3 M~     n.

d ' eR

                                                                                         , . 't *y
                                                                                          .h.,       'Y
                                                                              .' ;h!Q . . ' ;

1.5/091984 VAXC/85 1-1 i

jh : ll W( : 0 '.Y l h Y ? '

N N W ? ll W ? $ W E ?:?lN Y IRWl:.As:A

'% .4~

d . :* Q :. ;*. . 9

e. . , ,

W

  -y         .                                                                                                                                                                              - .                  -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   .n. ,..

r f: .y- l. . ;

    .y                                             The Clinton Power Station plan and schedule for conducting the DCRDR was                                                                     h.Idli

. ., fu

' . 7.

submitted to the NRC in the following letters: .C:".?.1i

      .c .

n

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 -q                .
                                                                        *                                                                                                                    * *;                           ii L]h                                                        o    Letter 0970-L dated April                        13, 1983 from                 D. P. Hall         to     A.             y' B
                                                                                                                                                                                                ,j
  .J'.L:

z.. Schwencer," Clinton Power Station Unit #1, Supplement to Unfa.: ,_ V NUREG-0737: Requirements for Emergency Response Capability."

                                                                                                                                                                                              ; A . (-{
,y                                                                                                                                                                                            :
                                                                                                                                                                                                ' pyg;
                                                                                                                                                                                                     -a.-                          ,

[, o Letter U-0647 dated July 5, 1983 from G. E. Wuller to A. Y[,.N

,f,i                                                            Schwencer," Clinton Power Station Unit #1, Emergency Response                                                                 M., ,- ; .' ,

g Capability Implementation Schedule." - Q -5

        <;                                                                                                                                                                                      3 . .,
                                                                                                                                                                                              #p;%;?.

Y The NRC staff has developed human engineering guidelines to assist each 1

w. 3. d W

licensee / applicant in the performance of the DCRDR as delineated in tlj j ' . n

   '~ .

NUREG-0700. S.a 4yg

,, , p a

b 79 This DCRDR will be conducted to include the NUREG-0700 four phases, which Q;, : , z . ., -QQ

...m.                                                are:                                                                                                                                          .
                                                                                                                                                                                                      .r.., /,. x
 -h , -                                                                                                                                                                                                   . . .                 k.*
;t"                                                                                                                                                                                             7, y ;,4 C f
} g'                                                        1. Planning                                                                                                                       Q .y$                         .:      .e k

e .. ; 2. Review

 . ,;.                                                                                                                                                                                          A., ;p" 'i*
"* ;                                                        3. Assessinent and Implementation, and                                                                                             +M                         @

g m ..j

  ",.;                                                      4. Reporting.                                                                                                                       .n '.' . ,                '

7'. ' y - W+.y

                                                                                                                                                                                                   , f .C l
                                                                                                                                                                                                     'nu .
  "2 4 ..

The Illinois Power Company will utilize NUREG-0801 October 1981, " Draft .f.N. . . , Evaluation Criteria for Detailed Control Room Design Review," which wi .'-: o

+ ~                                                  provides the criteria that it expects the NRC to use for evaluating the                                                                              '  i'i 9 y' y
.3.

J, above phases. g -y.'

       .:.                                                                                                                                                                                              .\ .s

.b- b . , . j --y This program plan will describe how the following elements required by 7%.[.

,f

.s Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 will be accomplished- -11

                                                                                                                                                                                                      ~ . , ,

54. .r . - D",. Q.;.

1. Establishment of a qualified multidisciplinary review team. g, 4g _t M,._E;.n .j.

  ;h.        y                                                                                                                                                                                       l f.g? .

h.' 4 ..

?-.

JQ%.a u4 y .pn. d 3., ..

9. ., .:.

2' 1.5/091984 7. , r 1 4 VAXC/85 1-2 Q-

                                                                                                                                                                                                      ,.3; A. .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                ._._   s'        '

f ,._ , . .yR)

                                                                                                                                                                                                        gf
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   "( '        x 1.

" i.* j ' (-y P, 4(0 -?7.~Y'.'.. e p ".;j 1,'; f.. g , ; .,f 's * . j,g , 4-

                                                                                                                                                                                 . b " .j ! c            g
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                .[9
                                         ':.1,. ..;$}.,.
  .& N ,_ , .;,            . . . ' ,(... O
                                         ,.[       .
                                                           >>.: go{  y'  . .,
                                                                                %,; y - .; - g, p,[.4 p , t. g ,    -a+lr. i '. p-y,t.j
                                                                                                                                .c .    :
                                                                                                                                            ,Jgt;%T;,'( g:.; y . ; _,~.,
                                                                                                                                            . f, . An ',
                                                                                                                                                                   .4-r
                                                                                                                                                                    ._      . . . _l.;   pr                        +

2. Function and task analyses that has been used as the basis for developing generic BWR Emergency Procedure Guidelines and Plant-specific Emergency Operating Procedures to identify control room operator tasks and information and control requirements during emergency operations.

3. A comparison of display and control requirements with a control room inventory.

4. A control room survey to identify deviations from accepted human factors principles.

5. Assessment of human engineering discrepancies (HEDs) to determine which HEDs may be significant and should be corrected.

6. Selection of design improvements that will correct HEDs.

7. Verification that selected design improvements will provide the necessary correction.

8. Verification that improvements will not introduce new HEDs.

9. Coordination of control room improvements with SPDS, instrumentation for Regulatory Guide 1.97 (Revision 3) and Emergency Procedure Guidelines, operator training and upgrading Emergency Operating Procedures to enhant ' the operator's ability to comprehend plant conditions and cope with emergencies.

In addition the program plan will define how the System Function and Task Analysis with the associated verification and validation will ne integrated with the verification and validation of the Emergency Operating Procedures, y::YMi

                                                                                                         ? A :q %

1.5/091984 VAXC/85 M

1.2 OBJECTIVES The Illinois Power Company intends to complete this review in a timely and - cost effective manner to: -e

1. Determine whether system status information, control capabilities, -

feedback and analytical aids necessary for control room operators e to accomplish their functions in an effective, safe and, reliable manner are provided in the control room.

2. Identify characteristics of the existing control room instru-mentation, controls, other equipment and physical arrangements that may significantly impact operator performance. ..

'l

3. Analyze and evaluate potential problems that identified this -

review.

4. Define and implement a plan of action that applies required human factors principles to enhance operator effectiveness. Particular emphasis will be placed on improvements affecting control room design and operator performance under normal or emergency conditions.

5. Integrate the DCRDR with other areas requiring the application of human factors principles identified in the Illinois Power Company's response to Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737.

6. Incorporate the results of the review of the main control room during the Preliminary Design Assessment conducted in 1981.

7. Review the main control room systems and items listed in the Clinton Power Station Safety Evaluation Report NUREG-0853 (Chapter - -

18) that were not available during the Preliminary Design _

Assessment. e 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 1-4 7

1.3 PUNT DESCRIPTION The Clinton Power Station Unit 1 is currently under construction in Harp Township, Dewitt County on a site approximately six miles east of the city of Clinton in east-central Illinois (see Figure 1-1). The unit core thermal (power is rated at 2894 MW(t) (100% steam fl ow) . The unit is designed to operate at a gross electrical power output of approximately 985 MW(e). The nuclear steam supply system is a General Electric BWR/6 boiling water reactor. The containment system employs the drywell/ pressure-suppression features of the BWR-Mark III containment concept. The basic power conversion unit is a General Electric turbine generator,1800 rpm, tandem compound, four-flow, reheat steam turbine with a gross electrical output of 984,866 kW. Commercial operation of Unit 1 is scheduled for late 1986. l I l l l l 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 1-5

1.4 DEFINITION OF CONTROL ROON The control room is defined as the following consoles, bench boards and panels includia7 the SPDS displays which are used by the operators for normal and emergency plant operations: CONSOLES P679 Shift Supervisor's Console P680 NUCLENET FRONT PANELS P601 Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) P877 Balance of Plant (B0P) P801 B0P P800 B0P P870 B0P BACK PANELS P678 Standby Information Panel P864 Area and Process Radiation Monitoring Display REMOTE SHUTDOWN PANEL C61-P001 (not in the main control room) The DCRDR will extend to other Man / Machine interfaces identified as a result of the analysis of selected events during the System Function and Task Analysis (SFTA) activity. Figure 1-2 illustrates the layout of the main control room. 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 1-6

1.5 PREVIOUS HUMAN ENGINEERING REVIEWS A Preliminary Design Assessment (PDA) of the main control room was conducted by General Physics Corporation in 1981. The NRC Control Room Design Review / Audit Report and the Clinton Power Station response to the findings are addressed in NRC letter from H. Bernard to G. Wuller dated July 16,1982, " Status Report of the Clinton Power Station Unit 1 Control Room Design Review." 1.6 CONTROL ROOM STATUS The main control room modifications to correct the findings noted in the NRC " Control Room Design Review / Audit Report, dated 12/11/81" are presently ( being implemented and are scheduled to be completed early in 1985. Instrumentation in the main control room is being installed to meet the l requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.97 (Revision 3) and Emergency Procedure Guidelines. This instrumentation is scheduled to be operational late in 1985. 1.7 FULL-SCALE MOCK-UP A full-scale mock-up of the defined control room will be constructed. Full-scale color photographs will be assembled on boards representing each l control room panel . These panels will be assembled to resemble the control room consoles and control panels. Clear plastic covers will be provided to l facilitate the corrective phase studies. 1.8 SIMULATOR I A full-scale plant-referenced simulator is being manufactured by the Singer Link Company. It is scheduled for delivery to the Clinton Power Station training center late in 1984. The simulator will comply with ANSI /ANS-3.5-1981. This facility will likely be used in the DCRDR. 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 1-7

L LEGEND: . DCS CRT - SPOS CRT- $$ PMS CRT - ARisiPRM - STAND BY l INFORMATION l PANEL P-864 P-678 NUCLENET O O P-680 1 6 OPERATOR NSSS BOP CONTROL CONTROL PANEL PANEL P-601 BOP P-877 P-679 P-870 SUPERVISOR'S CONSOLE B0P BOP AUXILIARY AUXILIARY CONTROL PANEL CONTROL PANEL P-801 P-800 Figure 1-2. Layout of Main Control Room 1-9 II

2.0 MANAGEMENT STAFFING AND PLANNING 2.1 GENERAL C0felENTS The DCRDR will be conducted to meet the requirements of NUREG-0737 Supplement 1, using the guidelines as recommended in NUREG-0700. It will consider the integration of human factors requirements that may affect control room design. The onrview of the DCRDR processes is shown in Figure 2-1 which is a copy of Exhibit 3-1 of NUREG-0700. The DCRDR will emphasize the following items noted in NUREG-0737, item I.D.1 as follows:

                                         "(1) The adequacy of information presented to the cperator to reflect plant status for normal conditions, anticipated operational occurrences and accident conditions; (2) The groupings of displays and the layout of panels; (3)     Improvements                                         in the safety monitoring and     human factors enhancement of controls and control displays; (4) The communications from the control room to points outside the

ontrol room, such as the onsite Technical Support Center, Remote Shutdown Panel, offsite telephone lines and to other areas within the plant for normal'and emergency operation; i

(5) The use of direct rather than derived signals for the presentation of process and safety information to the operator; (6) The operability of the plant from the control room with multiple failures of non-safety grade and nonseismic systems; 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 2-1

(7) The adequacy of operator training and operating procedures with respect to limitations of instrumentation displays in the control room; (8) The categorization of alarms, with unique definition of safety alarms; and (9) The physical location of the shift supervisor's office adjacent to or within the control room complex." 2.2 PUUINING The planning phase covers relevant actions completed to date or planned as noted herein.

?.,

The Emergency Response Capability Implementation Plan (ERCIP) was written .f'h 2 to coordinate the completion of integrated activities in Supplement I to }(@ h NUREG-0737. The ERCIP integrates the design of the SPDS, the design of I '.. 3, $i instrument displays based on Regulatory Guide 1.97 (Revision 3) and the j.') }. Emergency Procedure Guidelines, the Detailed Control Room Design Review, i.- the upgrading of Emergency Operating Procedures and operator training for j[; the purpose of enhancing the operator's ability to comprehend plant .

;[

conditions and cope with emergencies. 2.3 MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING The Vice President has designated the ERCIP Project Manager to guide, monitor and implement the activities for Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737. Program Managers have been designated for each activity and they report to the ERCIP Project Manager (see Figure 2-2). 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 2-2

The DCRDR Program Manager has designated a Principal Investigator and has established a DCRDR Review Team. The ERCIP provides the management organization as recommended in NUREG-0700 as follows: l o Assure proper relationship and awareness between this project and j other NUREG-0660 efforts. o Define objectives. l o Formulate the task structures for the program (see Figure 2-3). o Define the review team activities. o Approve detailed program plan. o Provide resources required to carry out the program plan. o Identify and assure that plant operational constraints and project requirements are properly coordinated. I o Monitor DCRDR progress, o Review and approve the assessment process. o Review and approve control room improvement recommendations. o Establish and initiate the control room improvement program. e 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 2-3

r A senior human factors specialist will provide human factors assistance to Illinois Power Company management. Figure 2-2 shows the functional organization for the ERCIP. Table 2-1 shows the composition of the DCRDR program organization that has been established to address the emergency response activities in Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737. To facilitate this review, the Illinois Power Company project management authorized the construction of a full-scale realistic mock-up of the control room panels, in addition to the simulator for an extensive review by human factors and systems specialists. The Design Review Team has the responsibility for the technical scope of the DCRDR. Assignments of team members to the various task groups are based on the specific needs for each task. Table 2-1 shows the assignments

of the team members. This table indicates the strong participation of human factors specialists in all major tasks and participation of the key Design Review Team members in most activities. The principal investigator can arrange for additional engineering and operations assistance on an "as-needed" basis. The qualifications of the Design Review Team members are consistent with the guidelines of NUREG-0801. The qualification of its consultant's (Torrey Pines Technology) members have been reviewed in a variety of past DCRDR program plans and have been favorably commented on by the NRC. Resumes of key Design Review Team members are attached as Appendix A. . The overall schedule for the DCRDR program is shown on Figure 2-4. ' The level of effort planned for the DCRDR is shown on Table 2-2. t 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 2-4

[ TABLE 2-1 t, 5 DCRDR DESIGN REVIEW TEAM MEIEERS _ AND ASSOCIATED TASK ASSIGNMENTS m

                                                                                                       -C Program Manager R. P. Bichel                                  l Principal Investigator
                                                                                                        =

M. J. Hollinden P. J. Telthorst (Alternate) Project Engineer _ Sr. Human Factors Specialist ; S. F. Luna = System Function and Planning Task Analysis (EOP & DCRDR) + S. F. Luna R. P. Bichel W. R. Arnold D. M. Antonelli ; R. Sabeh M. A. Krause* E. P. Gagnon J. M. Hall = M. J. Hollinden S. F. Luna M. J. Hollinden P. J. Telthorst R. C. Potter M. A. Krause* _ F. P. Scaletta P. J. Telthorst T. A. Sgamato 2

Verification of Task Capabilities and Operating Experience Review E0Ps S. F. Luna D. M. Antonelli W. R. Arnold D. M. Antonelli R. Sabeh R. P. Bichel E. P. Gagnon J. M. Hall M. J. Hollinden F. Scaletta M. A. Krause* R. Sabeh J. R. Patten r E. A. Schweitzer ___ r Validation of Control Room Functions - Control Room Survey and E0Ps 2 W. R. Arnold D. M. Antonelli E. P. Gagnon D. M. Antonelli - E. P. Gagnon R. P. Bichel R. Sabeh J. M. Hall M. J. Hollinden M. A. Krause, S. F. Luna S. F. Luna - R. Sabeh J. R. Patten W. Welch w _ Control Room Inventory E. P. Gagnon R. P. Bichel g F. P. Scaletta M. J. Hollinden 7 T. A. Sgammato _

s .- also a member of the E0P upgrade program, k 1.5/091984 g VAXC/85 _- 2-5 '

TABLE 2-1 (cont.) DCRDR DESIGN REVIEW TEAM MEIEERS AND ASSOCIATED TASK ASSIGNMENTS Assessments /and Im)lementation Documentation W. R. Arnold ). M. Antonelli E. P. Gagnon M. J. Holliden E. P. Gagnon R. P. Bichel S. F. Luna P. J. Telthorst S. F. Luna M. J. Hollinden R. Sabeh M. A. Krause* J. P. O'Brien T. L. Riley P. J. Telthorst 1.5/091984 VAXC/89 2-6

3 Table 2-2 LEVEL OF EFFORT (MAN-HOURS) 0F VARIOUS DISCIPt.INE GROUPS IN PERFORMING THE DCRDR FOR CLINTON POWER STATION HUMAN NUCLEAR , FACTORS REACTOR I&C 1.~ STEMS DCRDR PHASE / TASK ENGINEERS OPERATORS ENGINEERS ENGINEERS

                                                                                                                           ;,>p v ,

Planning 220 100 120 DI,. .-.'c J Review- ;?

. J .' >

Operating Experience Review 220 140 40 40 b'/ ' / . Inventory 200 200 .[i,;;1

                                                                                                                              . . , .~          .

Control Room Survey 300 120 40 Task Analysis 80 40 300 400 -[q.. U -.? 4 y. Verification and Validation 80 120 100 400 9s ^.,w.

                                                                                                                                 + ;. *-
                                                                                                                                                  ^

Assessments 200 80 200 40 K. s,.jf. Correction / Effectiveness 120 80 80 80 f ,/.x

                                                                                                                                 .e
                                                                                                                                   '. '} # .

Documentation 120 100 80 A

                                                                                                                        ' ' r,M ~

Project Meetings 80 40 100 80 W %n; --

s. e. 3,.y w z,; . 1 ,,

                                                                                                                          .;, ,w r.,

c. - .n

                                                                                                                          ;'y ' . .
                                                                                                                          ' . L,'.

3 9 h/. .

, f;.

                                                                                                                         #2 ; .Q y .g b s"-
                                                                                                                          ',s..            ,,-
                                                                                                                            ..:: R-lLu. '%\                  ,
                                                                                                                         ,e.,.
                                                                                                                              +.<_

3.. n p..

                                                                                                                          . .,% 1: ;

[.?! . ^; 1.5/091984 t.1 ,! VAXC/85 ' n . ,29,g 2-7 ;.

                                                                                                                                .it,u
                                                                                                                          ,<:9'.,
                                                                                                                              -g-      .

A m 4 I S I s! i:t. i gi ~ a, = gi s 8 IIIE j

) l !l! I fili -

5. - -=

9 x- : I .e_ l ::E! - Si Ei- 2. 35;:i -!-

                                                                                          !i i=l                 55 E!'

5 in- el

                                                   .            5:!{
                                                                                          !'=g t                                   t                       "

e I i EE! s!'sli8i !

                                                                                        !!! i]3 as:   c                    =     4 21l!55 l as i              U u     d
                                         !g --                             3;;

n I I g a f' !!! sIij ni

                                                                                                     =525 a:

2 His 1

                                          !:]                                    :! gg               !lji          E     =

lii gas a!

                                                                           !l as:

i!= lr: 8 g=g !!E t s t o

3 { t 4)

*=

I I

        ~               !          ,                                              s                     n   .:      b I ! si                                 :3!                ! !                   ! !I       5 il =as!!                               liv            =. n i c:                                                                   ag     Ejn.

v og- . - - . E3 I~

gk .

Y t e8 T is !!!! 5!lg I sf 5:si E Y ll $5!! l!:!!"

33 E i 5 E _iB !! t .

                                                                                                   ._f                      '

jil== '

g. .

s t - n: ..e c

$!h a 0il E5] -

1 I : 19 .-e ,. : s_ a

                !!.3           $$,

f ,>- t , 5" a ;

                     .aill   ,

2-8 2

APPROVE: VICE PRESIDENT e PROGRAM PLAN e FINAL REPORTS e DE -'N IMPLEMENTATIONS REVIEW AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL: DIRECTOR PLANT MANAGER e PROGRAM PLAN NUCLEAR SUPPORT MG R-NUC. STAT. e DESIGN CRITERIA ENGR DEPART e DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS REVIEW AND COORDINATE: o PROGRAM PLAN PROJECT MANAGER e FINAL REPORTS EMER. RESP. CAP. lMPL. PLAN e DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION (ERCIP) e DESIGN CRITERIA e DESIGN REVIEW l FINDINGS l l e EMER. RESP. PROGRAMS PROGRAM MANAGER PROGRAM MAN AGER SAFETY PARAMETER SPDS VERIFICATION DISPLAY SYSTEM (SPDS) AND VAllDATION i PROGRAM MANAGER PROGRAM MANAGER PROGRAM MAN AGER DETAILED CON 1ROL EMER. R ESP. UPGRADE EMER. ROOM DESIGN REVIEW FACILITIES OPER. PR OC. DESIGN REVIEW TEAM DEVELOP / PERFORM / EVALUATE: e PROGRAM PLAN ILLINDIS POWER COMPANY e FINAL

SUMMARY

REPORT PRINCIPALINVESTIGATOR e CRITERIA ENGINEERING, OPERATIONS & LICENSING e CHECKLISTS AS REQUIRED eSURVEYS e INVENTORY GENERAL ELECTRIC /SARGENT & LUNDY e SYSTEM FUNCTION ENGINEERING AS REQUIRED & TASK ANALYSIS e WALK / TALK THROUGHS TOR REY PINES TECHNOLOGY e PROCEDURES PROJECT ENGINEER e OBSERVATIONS ASS'T PROJECT ENGINEER e E0P VERIFICATION TASK ANALYSIS SPECIALISTS AND VAllDATION HUMAN FACTORS SPECIALISTS e ASSESSMENTS CORRECTIVE ACTION SPECIALISTS

DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION LICENSING PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS Figure 2-2. Overall ERCIP Organization 2-9

D VICE PRESIDENT

PLANT MANAGER / MANAGER-NSED

PROJECT MANAGER ERCIP

PROGRAM MANAGER DCROR 1 r k PLANNING PHASE : REVIE T AM

                       +                         +
              +                                       +                                                   +

ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION REPORTING PHASE REVIEW PHASE 7? PHASE

                                                                             *                   (DOCUMENTATION)
 +                                                    +                    _

OPERATING DESIGN REVIEWTEAM RECOMMENDATIONS EXPERIENCE REVIEW CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONALSTUDIES 1 r k

  +         SURVEY C      VERIFICATION AND VAll0ATION
                       +                              +

CONTROL ROOM , MANAGEMENT REVIEWS AND RECOMMENDS INVENTORY APPROVAL OF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS k k i r 1 r

     ' '. SYSTEM FUNCTION                     VICE PRESIDENT                                       DATA BASE AND TASK ANALYSIS

APPROVES FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

                           +                          +                                                  +

VERIFICATION & ENGINEERING ORGANIZATION VAll0ATION

                             +          IMPLEMENTS MODIFICATIONS                                  FINAL REPORT Figure 2-3. Formulation of the DCRDR Task Structure 2-10

1964 1985 BCEDE PEASE /TA E AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB HAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC I I I I I i i i I I I I I I I I I I FLANNING PEASE l l l l l l I I l l 1 l l l 1 1 1 1 I l i I I I l i I I i i l l I I I I Prepare Program Plan Imummimmed l l l 1 l l l 1 l l i i i i l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NOCE-UP l Mmmutum l 1 1 1 1 1 l l l l I l l l 1 1 I i i i I I i i l I i l i I I I I OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW l W l l l l l l 1 l l l l l l l l 1 I i l i i l i I I I I I I I I I Examine Documents i I I I I l l 1 1 I I I i i l ! I I Survey Personnel l I I I I I i 1 l l l l l l l l l 1 I I I i l l l 1 1 I I I I I I I I I CONTROL ROOM SURVEY l I N l l l 1 1 I I l l l l l 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Perform Survey and Complete Checklists l l l l 1 l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I i l i l i l 1 I CONTROL ROOM INVENTORY l N l l l l l t i i l l l l l 1 1 I I l I i l I i i l i I I I I I I SYSTEM TUNCTION DESCRIPTION 1 h l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l I I Identify Systems l I I i 1 1 I I I i l l l 1 1 I i l Describe Systen Functions I i i i l l l l l 1 1 I I I I l l l l l l I I' I I i' l i i l I I I i l i TASK ANALYSIS l l l I I l l l l l l ] I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Select Operating Scenarios l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 ! l Conduct Task Analysis l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 l l l 1 1 I I I I I I I I l l l l l l l l VERIFICATION I l l l l l l bmmnemed l l l l l l l 1 I l l i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I&C Availability i I I l l l l l l t 1 1 I l l l l 1 I&C Suitability i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I i l I i l i I I I I I VALIDATION l l l l l l l P""P" 'P" l I l 1 l l l I I I I I I i i l l I I I I I I I I I walk.through i I l l l l l 1 l l 1 l l l l 1 l l 1 1 I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION I i l l 1 I l l l l l 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i i Assess and Categorize REDS l l l l l l l l ! l l l l l l l l l Develop HED Resolutions I l l 1 l l I l l l l l l 1 1 l I I Mock Up Resolutions - V&V i l i l l i l i i l l l l l l l l l Develop Implementation Schedule i I I i 1 l l l l l l l l l 1 l l l l l l l l 1 i i l I i 1 1 I I I I I DOCUMENTATION l l I l l l l l l ' ' ' l l l l l l l l 1 I I I I i i i i i i l i l I I Crite Final Summary Report I l l i l i l l l l l l l l l l l ! Submit Final Summary Report to NR l l l l l l l l l l 1 l l l l l l l l 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Note: E0P V&V is integrated in the above schedule Figure 2-4. Schedule of DCRDR Activities 2-11

3.0 DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW METHODOLOGY I i 3.1 GENERAL 3.1.1 PROCEDURES i The tasks outlined for the DCRDR in Figure 2-3 will be conducted by members of the Design Review Team whose specialties fit the particular task. The appropriate Design Review Team members will be divided into Task Teams. Each Task Team will hold 'an initial meeting and prepare a detailed task procedure which will be reviewed by the Principal Investigator and approved by the Program Manager. Each procedure will include as applicable the following: o Purpose o Applicability o References o Responsibilities o Requirements for the task o Guidelines and checklists (if necessary) o Methodology for each task element o Organization for task execution o Flow diagram (if necessary) o Report outline (if report is required) o Effective date for using procedure Appendix B is a typical procedure. A project interface p'rocedure will be prepared to define the duties and general methodology for the Task Team's activities. This will be done during the initial meeting of the Task Team. This procedure will be approved by the DCRDR Program Manager and will be used and updated as required. 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 3-1

p. Note 1: The DCRDR Program Manager has the option for direct approval or for a consensus approval by the Design Review Team of all procedures. Note 2: Procedures are living documents and can be modified, with approval, as the need and experience dictates. A library of plant documents will be established for the Design Review Team. It will contain many of the human engineering documents referenced in NUREG-0700, EPRI documents and the following plant documents: o Licensee Event Reports o Final Safety Analysis Report o Systems Descriptions o Piping and Instrumentation Ort. wings o Control Room Floor Plan o Panel Layout Drawings o Panel Photographs o Lists of acronyms and abbreviations used in the control room o Descriptions of coding conventions used in the control room o' Procedures (emergency operating,etc.) o Operator training materials for E0Ps o Control Room Preliminary Design Assessment Report o Generic Control Room Design Review Report o Guidelines for Procedure Development (per I.C.1 and NUREG-0799) o BWR Owners' Group Control Room Design Summary Report o SPDS Preimplementation Package Functional Design Description and Requirements Document o Clinton Power Station Unit 1 Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 Requirements for Ecergency Response Capability - Emergency Response Capability Implementation Plan (ERCIP) (Submitted to the NRC) o Control Room Inventory o Instrument Lists o E0P - Procedures Generation Package (NRC submittal) o Draft Technical Specifications 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 3-2 ;

3.1.2 Criteria The Design Review Team will prepare a Criteria Report. This effort will stress the human factors considerations and requirements for the control room. This document will describe the function of the control room and plant systems. It will also include the control room conventions, human factors data such as labeling, lighting etc. and will define ongoing procedures to assure the continued application of human factors principles to future control room design changes, including verification and validation of changes. Criteria will be developed considering: o Those human factors engineering practices that have general industry acceptance and have resulted in proven performance, f o Pertinent NUREG documents, BWROG documents and Regulatory Guides, o Established criteria from general industry, EPRI, INPO, government sources, Illinois Power Company conventions, standards and practices. 3.1.3 Data Base Management System several major tasks in this DCRDR will involve the collection, filing, comparing and sorting of large amounts of related data. The most significant of these tasks are: o System Function and Task Analysis and E0P Validation and Verification

 -         o                                  Control Room Inventory o                                   Control Room Survey 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 3-3

-~~

A Data Base Management System (DBMS) will be used for this DCRDR. This

             -system is available on a mini-computer. This system has large storage capacity for storing large numbers of multiple field records.                                                                               It also has a capability for sorting up to 16 fields and for linking files (groups of records) through a common field in each file.

The following are descriptions of the intended implementation of this DBMS for the tasks listed above. System Function and Task Analysis & E0P V&V The tabulation of. task data involves the filing and sorting of information about each step in the event sequence such as step sequence number, step description, equipment number, panel number, operator, etc. These data will be stored and sorted by different fields for use in the traffic flow analysis and the task sequence analysis. Also by using the file linking option of the DBMS, the task analysis file can be linked with the control room inventory file via the device field in both files. This provides an automated method for verifying the presence of the devices and characteristics of devices required to accomplish the operator action. Control Room Inventory The control room' inventory requires the compilation of a complete list of the control room devices. This information will be recorded and sorted using the DBMS. Some of the detailed data required for each device are as j follows: i

~l

\ 1.5/091984 i VAXC/85 l 3-4 i i l'

o Device number s o Panel number o Device location coordinates o System o Device type o Switch positions o Instrument range o Instrument division o Device label o Device manufacturer This information will be sorted by panel to provide a file of information for evaluating the inventory of equipment required for the events reviewed in the task analysis. Control Room Survey The control room survey requires reporting and sorting of human engineering observations.- The DBMS not only provides the capability for filing and reporting this information but the " sort" option can provide quick reference to all the HEOs for a particular device or to all the HE0s for a particular panel or panel face. 3.2 OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW 3.2.1 Purpose The purpose of the Operating Experience Review (OER) is to provide early input regarding plant operating experience from the operations personnel most familiar with control rooms for use by the human factors and task analysis Design Review Team members. This will allow for special attention of known observations. 1.5/Cn1984 VAXC/85 3-5

The OER will address three distinct elements, i.e. a review of: o Plant operating experience (experience of similar plants). o Operations personnel responses to a structured questionnaire. o Responses to data collected during interviews of operations personnel. 3.2.2 NETH000 LOGY This review will be performed by the Operating Experience Review Task Team identified in Table 2-1. Review of Operating History Documents A review of human errors made during plant operation will be performed. This review will include the Significant Operating Experience Reports (SOERs) and Licensee Event Reports (LERs) for BWRs (types 4,5 and 6) over the last three years. Individual reports will be reviewed to determine potential human factors involvement. Those items that are suspect will be reviewed further during the operations personnel interviews. If the inter-views indicate human factors involvement, they will be given to the Control Room Survey Task Team or the System Function and Task Analysis Task Team for background information. The LERs/SOERs will be reviewed for human factors implications for the events involving: 4

1. ? detection error due to high workload, high noise level, poor location of signal, confusion of alarms due to poor legibility or poor grouping of alarm in location.

1.5/091984 VAXC/85 3-6

n , , . . . .- - . -- .. -

2. A i display identification error due to inadequate labeling,

                             -inadequate     differentiation         by      sha pe,      color,                       grouping or p.

derarca tion, poor display legibility, inadequate display scale, inappropriate scale units requiring mental conversion. h.

3. A decision error due to inadequate training, insufficient information available, poor integration of information or lack of decision aids or. diagnostic procedures.

gg 4. A procedure error due to inadequate training, procedures poorly O' " 3- ' written or organized or panel layout not corresponding to the operating sequence.

5. An execution error due to inadequate labeling; inadequate di fferentiation of controls caused by shape, color coding, He grouping or demarcation, violation of movement sterotype, inadequate labeling of control position; inadequate device ,

44 feedback, or insufficient training. 4

6. A communication error due to inconveniently . located or

               ', 4          . insufficient communication equipment, poor signal-to-noise ratio of communication system or lack of standard lexicon or syntax for
                      'bressages.

7. A side effect error due to devices poorly positioned in workspace or due to a crowded workspace.

N I F j

                                                                     .h L

7 1.5/091984

VAXC/85 L 3-7

Review of Questionnaire Responses A questionnaire booklet will be prepared covering the following topics: o Workspace and Environment o Communications o Annunciator Warning Systems o Controls - o Visual Displays o Labels and Location Aids o Process Computers o Panel Layout o Control-Display Integration o Procedures, Manning and Training o Control Room Equipment and Storage The booklet will be processed through the Desigr. Review Team and distributed to operations personnel trained or receiving training in the following disciplines: o Reactor Operators o Senior Reactor Operators o Unit Shift Supervisors o Shift Technical Advisors

 .      .o   Appropriate station management and training personnel Questions will be posed such that the responses requiring an explanation will be indicative of an undesirable or problematical control room design aspect. For these responses, respondents will be asked to explain the specific problem or deficiency' and, if applicable, to identify the panel, system, equipment, and/or component. See Appendix C for typical questions ,

and format structure to be used. 1 i 1.5/091984 1 VAXC/85 I 3-8

The questionnaire booklets will be distrituted to the majority of plant operations crews and other personnel with past nuclear plant operating experience. The respons a to the questionnaires will be analyzed by the Task Team with the following cbjectives:

1. Determine those problem areas that should be explored in more detail during the interviews.

2. Provide the Control Room Survey and System Function and Task Analysis Task Teams with reference material.

3. Provide reference material for Human Engineering Observations (HE0s) that will be prepared in the later task efforts.

4. Provide summary results for the OER report.

Review of InterviEd Responses The human factors consul tant (Torrey Pines Technology) will handle the operations personnel interviews exclusively. A majority of the Illinois Power Company operations personnel will be interviewed consistent with availability. Interviews will take place in the vicinity of the central control room or simulator equipment to facilitate visual explanations of problem areas, if any. The interviews will be based on the results of the questionnaire responses and the following considerations:

1. Interviews will identify those aspects of the main control room equipment layout and general design which operations personnel consider as improvements in performing control room functions.

1.5/091984 VAXC/85 3-9

2. Questions will be focused on those details of the main control room environment which are projected to indicate notable success, failure and potential problem situations based on past experiences.

3. Respondents will be advised that the information obtained will not be used for performance evaluation purposes. (Project procedures will assure that comments by operations personnel will remain anonymous.)

4. Respondents will be encouraged to speak openly about problems from their past experience or perceived potential problems and suggested solutions.

5. Other questionnaires developed by industry and research groups in previous projects.

6. Interviews will be structured to allow for additions of material developed during the interview and verification of data.

l The data evaluation will be dene immediately following completion of the interview period to assure maximum benefit from the interview. The data l evaluation results will be forwarded to the Program Manager for review. An additional review of areas of significant changes may be required. l-Human Engineering Observations will not be prepared for the Operating j Experience Review task unless an observation not covered by a criteria in l Section 6 of NUREG-0700 is discovered. All problem areas or " Observations" will be noted as " Operating Experience Review Observations". These Observations will be tied into a NUREG-0700, Section 6 guideline and the validity of these Observations will be established during the Control Room I Survey and/or System Function and Task Analysis. 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 3-10

M-3.3 CONTROL ROOM INVENTORY 3.3.1 Purpose An inventory of controls, instrumentation, displays and other equipment on the control room man / machine interfaces will be conducted. This inventory will establish a reference data base for comparison with the requirements established by operator task analysis.

3.3.2 Methodology The following will be done by the Control Room Inventory Task Team identified in Table 2-1 in performing the inventory

o Device Number A device number will be used in the event the Instrument Number proves unsuitabic for data base manipulation. This device number i will be arbitrarily assigned to each instrument to facilitate accountability and quality in compiling the inventory. These same numbers will also be on labels affixed to the full-scale mock-up. These device numbers will be unique and as such will be used exclusively with the Control Room Survey and Systems Function ano Task Analysis. The device number will be used to identify instruments not complying with NUREG-0700 Section 6 guidelines and will be listed in any HE0s generated. The System Function and Task Analysis task will also use these numbers to outline the operator steps. o Instrument Numbers

Instrument numbers will be used (or assigned to t!1e items in the inventory) in order to identi fy the type of instru: crit in

question.

l l (*) Generic term referring to all control panel devices 1.5/091964 VAXC/85 3-11

l l o Service Description Information will be included in order to either create a non-existent label or to render more definitive the information given in the label ; P& ids, the Instrument Index, FSAR, or GE documents will be consulted at various times for more definitive information. o System Number System numbers will be assigned based on the Clinton Power Station System Index. o Manufacturer /Model This data will be collected as available. o Range / Units These values will be collected from the photomosaic and other plant documents and will be used during the verification and validation effort of the DCRDR program, o Minimum Scale Increment l These values will be collected from the photomosaic and other

pl ant documents and will be used during the verification and validation effort of the DCRDR.

I o Panel Number l l- The numbers will be as established. l l Data from the inventory will be added to the DBMS defined earlier. i An example of an inventory sheet is shown in Figure 3-1. L 1.5/091984 l VAXC/85 3-12 l _ . _ - . . ~ . _ _. .

3.4 CONTROL ROOM SURVEY 3.4.1 Purpose A survey of the full-scale mock-up and the Clinton Power Station control room will be performed to evaluate ccmpliance with the control room criteria document. The use of a realistic mock-up will permit completion of the bulk of the checklist items developed without interfering with control room construction. Those items that cannot be evaluated on the mock-up, such as control room workspace, communication devices, illumination, use of protective clothing and other environmental considerations, will be completed using the main control room in actual service conditions. The control room noise survey will be conducted while the plant is in power operation. The objectives of the Control Room Survey will be to: o Identify characteristics of the control room instrumentation and physical arrangements that may impact operator performance. o Determine whether the contral room provides the system status information, control capabilities, feedback, and analytical aids necessary for effective plant. operation, o Provide recommendations for correcting problems based on good human factors principles. l l l 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 g 3-13 L

3.4.2 Nethodology The Control Room Survey will be conducted using nine checklists to be

developed from the Criteria Report (essentially to Section 6, NUREG-0700). It will be performed by the Control Room Survey Task Team identified in Table 2-1. The checklists to be developed will cover: 6.1 Control Room Workspace 6.2 Communications 6.3 Annunciator Warning Systems 6.4- Controls-I 6.5 Visual Displays 6.6 Labels and Location Aids 6.7 Process Computers 6.8 Panel Layouts 6.9 Control-Display Integration and will use the same ntmber and title contained in NUREG-0700, Section 6. . Each checklist will contain a title page, detailed description of the criteria and a reference / comment form to allow the observer to expand on-L any potential deficiencies discovered in the survey (See Figures 3-2 and 3-3). The basis for each criteria judgement will be established in the Criteria Reoort. The Criteria Report will identify NUREG-0700, and other l criteria as appropriate for this survey. By performing the Control Room Survey in this fashion, every item addressed in Section 6 of NUR5G-0700 will be addressed.- l

  .Any items ' identified as not meeting the guideline criteria will           be l   documented as Human Engineering Observations (HE0s). Each HE0 will contain a brief description of the observation, the potential operator error and a i-  recommended good human factors resolution.

The procedure for evaluating the HE0s generated by the Control Room Survey is discussed in Section 4.0. 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 3-14 E

3.5 E0P AND DCRDR IllTEGRATED SYSTEM FUNCTION AND YASK ANALYSIS 3.5.1 Purpose The purpose of the Syste:a Function and Task Analysis (SFTA) is to analyze the ability of the plant operating crew to use the control room man / machine interfaces , Emergency Operating Procedures, communications and other control room facilities to operate the plant sa fely under emergency conditions. This task employs the techniques of reviewing the entry and exit conditions for the emergency operations. 3.5.2 Methodology The SFTA methodology will constitute a structured review and analysis conducted: o According to the guidelines presented in NUREG-0700 for the DCRDR. o To meet the requirements of the E0P Verification and Validation (E0P V&V) program. It will be performed by the SFTA Task Team members identified in Table 2-1. The results of the review and analysis will be assembled into data sheets l and diagrams showing operator tasks, actions and movements required for use in the Verification and Validation phases of the DCRDR and E0P V&V l (Sections 3.6 and 3.7). l l The Illinois Power Company has already performed a review of the generic BWR Emergency Procedure Guidelines (EPGs) as well as the plant-specific EPGs to determine Clinton Power Station information and control needs. As part of the SFTA task, this review rrethodology will be documented and a detailed verification will be performed to ensure the adequacy of this review. This verification will provide consistency with the remainder of the DCRDR and the E0P V&V. l 1.5/091984 l- VAXC/85 l 3-15 l

, The integration of these activities is shown in Figure 3-4 and as indicated therein, parts of the E0P V&V will be completed in support of the SFTA. This work will include the following:

1. Document Review The initial activity in the SFTA will be to review the following documents related to plant design and operation as they pertain to the DCRDR and E0P V&V:

o FSAR o System Descriptions o Emergency Procedure Guidelines o Emergency Operating Procedures o Plant Opcrating Procedures o Draft Technical Specifications o P& ids o E0P Verification and Validation Program

2. System and E0P Data Collection This activity will document the system and E0P information as a worksheet for use in the event selection process as well as for general _ use in the DCRDR and E0P V&V. The format shown in Figure 3-5 will be used which contains the following characteristics:

o Sy:tcii; - Identifies major systems presented in the

FSAR.

o Basic Plant Safety Function - Identifies systems by basic safety function performed. l 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 3-16

o E0P - Identifies systems addressed in the E0Ps that require some form of operator attention related to its basic plant safety function. o SOE - Identifies systems ultimately addressed in the Selected Operating Event (SOE).

3. . Selection of Events for Analysis The. following criteria will be used in the selection of events:

o Utilize a broad range of control room functions, o Require time-dependent action by the operator. o Require multisystem operation and interaction by the o perator. o Represent potentially high-stress situations for the operator, o Addresses all non-identical E0P operator tasks. o Addresses all identical E0P operator tasks at least once. However, to prevent the transmitting of E0P errors into the subsequent DCRDR and E0P V&V phases, Parts IV.A, IV.C.1 and IV.C.3 of the E0P V&V (see Figure 3-4) will be completed prior to selecting the events. This activity will be conducted as described in the E0P V&V program. The SFTA Task Team will use an interactive process involving Figure 3-5, the E0Ps and the above selection criteria as follows:

          -o   Select an initial set of Initiating Events using Figure 3-5 and selection criteria.

o Determine the E0P flow-paths for each Initiating Event. l 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 3-17

o Evaluate systems addressed on each E0P flow-path against selection criteria and revise the initiating event and/or the selected E0P flow path accordingly. o Evaluate operator decision-points on each E0P flow-path against the selection criteria and add to each Initiating Event the assumption of concurrent or subsequent system failures as necessary.

4. E0P and SOE Data Collection In this activity, the E0P-specific and SOE-specific data will be collected which will consist of the following major activities.for each E0P:

S o Operator Task Data - formulation of task description and requirements for primary and alternate tasks from the E0P flow-paths including an estimate of related system status based on an estimate of elapsed-time, principally from the FSAR (see Figure 3-6). This activity will be independent of the control room panels, o Operator Step Data - formulation of step description per task and identificatior, of control room devices that the operator could use for each step on the E0P flow-path using principally the photomosaic mock-up of the control room (see Figure 3.-7). The E0P task and step data applicable to each SOE will be identified per SOE in a similar manner. 1 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 3-18

5. SFTA Data Base The SFTA data base will be one of three in the Data Base Management System defined for the DCRDR of the Clinton Power Station. The data base will be a collection of data records as shown in Figure 3-8. Various collections of these data records will comprise the data sheets which in turn form the basis for the link diagrams.

6. E0P and SOE Data Sheets The E0P and SOE data will be entered into the SFTA data base and the necessary manipulations between data bases will be made.

However, to prevent the transmitting of E0P errors into the subseauent DCRDR and E0P V&V phases, Part IV.C.2.b of the E0P V&V (see Figure 3-4) will be completed at this point in the SFTA. The necessary data sheets (see Figure 3-11) will be generated from the SFTA data base and the evaluation performed according to the E0P V&V program. Any revisions to the data base resulting therefrom will be made and the data sheets and diagrams for the Verification and Validation phases will be produced (see Figures 3-9, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12_and 3-13). t 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 3-19

  =_
       .3.6     E0P AND 'M2DR INTEGRATED VERIFICATION 3.6.1    . Purpose The purpose of the verification of task performance and capabilities is to d'termine e            that instrumentation and controls with the characteristics         )

identified in the task analysis (Section 3.5) are available and suitable for the operating crew to perform the approved emergency operations. 3.6.2 Methodology The Verification Phase will be conducted: o In a manner consistent with the objectives of NUREG-0700 for the DCRDR. o To meet the requirements of the E0P V&V program. It will be performed by the Verification Task Team members identified in Table 2-1. ' The results of the verification will be: i ( o Specific Human Engineering Observations (HEOs) submitted for assessment or potential HE0s forwarded to the Validation Phase for l_ further evaluation. o Discrepancies in the E0Ps documented and resolved per the E0P V&V program. l The integration of these activities is shewn in Figures 3-4 and 3-14. As ) 1 j indicated therein, parts of the E0P verification will have been completed in support of the SFTA (Section 3.5) and part of the E0P validation will be completed in support of the remaining verification activities, j l l I l 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 j 3-20 ) L I

                                                                               .                =

The checklists and/or guides that will be used for the remaining parts of the E0P verification are documented in the E0P V&V program. The checklists that will be used for DCRDR verification will be the same as those used in the Control Room Survey. They will be distinguished from the CRS checklists - through the use of a separate form (see Figure 3-15). The criteria matrix will indicate those guidelines requiring SFTA data and will be the focus of the DCRDR verification. This will have the added benefit of inherently including the results of the CRS and OER in the verification (and validation) process. Execution of the E0P and DCRDR checklists and/or guides will consist primarily of evaluating the data sheets and diagrams produced by the SFTA for guideline compliance. This will be analogous to the evaluation of the control panels in the Control Room Survey of the DCRDR. In addition to the above data sheets and diagrams, guideline-specific or task-specific data groupings will be obtained from the SFTA or Control Room Inventory data bases as necessary to facilitate evaluation. In evaluating - the data sheets and diagrams, the following additional guidelines will be used, o Steps which occur near the boundary line between the two panels may be within the same workspace (devices may be on separate panels but still grouped together).

o For overall system monitoring tasks, it is considered acceptable for the steps to occur on more than one panel.

o Non-emergency SOEs (plant startup), if any, are not constrained by time or stress as is the case for emergency events thus grouping L of tasks on two adjacent panels may be considered acceptable. 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 3-21

    -   ,        ,   ,,,   --..r.~ .,#----._vy-  ,-,..,...--._,-.,-.-,,,.-.._,,,,,,_,_wv.r..ny,   gy_,-,,,.,.,.,,..,.,%73..%,..

o Tasks or functions occurring on more than one panel may be acceptable if more than one operator is involved. o Tasks or functions occurring on two or more adjacent panels may be acceptable if _ one or more of the panels is a very small or short panel. o Tasks which have steps that occur on both a console and the corresponding, but separate, vertical panel are acceptable if the vertical panel step is an observation of an instrument or status light that can easily be seen from the console position. For the documentation and resolution of E0P discrepancies, the provisions of the E0P V&V program will be used. For documentation of non-compliance with a OCRDR guideline, existing HE0s for - the guideline will be reviewed for revision possibilities. Lacking same, a new HE0 will be prepared. Potential non-compliance with a DCRDR guideline will be identified on a task basis for further evaluation in the Validation Phase. 1 i l l 1.5/091984 l 1 VAXC/85 3-22 I

3.7 E0P AII0 DQtDR IIITEGRATED VALIDATI0ll 3.7.1 Purpose The purpose of the validation of function execution is to determine that all. the needs of the operating crew are available and suitable to perform the approved emergency operaticns.

           -3.7.2         Methodology
          ' The Validation Phase will be conducted:

, o In a manner consistent with the objectives of NUREG-0700 for the DCRDR. o To meet the requirements of the E0P V&V program. 4 It ' will be performed by the Validation Ta:k Team members identified in Table 2-1. The results of the validation will be: o Discrepancies in the E0Ps documented and resolved per E0P V&V program. o Resolved potential HE0s from the Verification Phase and additional HE0s for submittal for assessment. The integration of these activities is shown in Figures 3-14 and 3-16 and as indicated therein, part of the E0P validation will have been completed in support of verification. 7 The checklists and/or guides that will be used in the remaining parts of l the E0P validation are documented in the E0P V&V program. f l

1.5/091994 VAXC/85 3-23

As in the DCRDR Verification Phase (Section 3.6), the Control Room Survey Checklists will be used along with the same reference / comment form (Figure 3-15). The selection of operator tasks and SOEs for validation will be made from a comprehensive evaluation of all tasks of all SOEs using the following criteria: o Maximizes operator workstation utilization, potential stress, interaction and workload. 4 o Addresses all significant operator tasks. o Addresses all potential HE0s identified in the Verification Phase. o Addresses all unresolved E0P discrepancies. The validation will use both walk / talk-through and simulator methods. 3.7.2.1 Walk / Talk-Through Method [ l A procedure will be developed based on the photo-mosaic mockup of the l control room. l l The procedure will consist of the following principal elements: I l o Use of three observers with the lead observer directing all activity using the appropriate SFTA data sheets and diagrams from i the Verification Phase. l o Two operators will execute tasks as directed by the lead observer. l l 1 l 1.5/091984 I VAXC/85 i 3-24 _. l

o Execution of the checklists and guides for guideline compliance. o Video / audio recording of all activity. The execution of the walk / talk-through procedure will inherently include the execution of the checklists and guides. Operator activity will be initiated by the lead observer giving plant symptoms or task descriptions from the SFTA data sheets. The operator response will be the execution of a task sequence and/or steps to accomplish the task (s) which will be evaluated by the observers for DCRDR and E0P guideline compliance. The evaluation process will include frequent discussions with the operators and references to the Control Room Inventory data base or E0Ps as necessary. For the documentation and resolution of E0P discrepancies, the provisions in the E0P V%V program will be used. The potential HE0s from the DCRDR Verification Phase will be resolved and any additional non-compliance with a guideline will be documented in the same manner as the Verification Phase (Section 3.6). All tasks, potential HE0s and E0P discrepancies of a time-dependent nature will be noted for evaluation on the simulator. 3.7.2.2 ' Simulator Method A procedure for validation on the control room simulator will be developed and will consist of essentially the same elements as the walk / talk-through procedure. Operator activity will be initiated with the simulator at plant conditions closest to the plant symptoms or task speci fied by the lead observer. Operator response (s) to the simulator will be evaluated by the 1.5/091984 VAXC/85 3-25

observers for DCRDR and E0P guideline compliance and will include frequent discussions with the operators and references to the Control Room Inventory and E0Ps as necessary. All ~ outstanding potential HE0s will be resolved and E0P discrepancies will be documented and resolved per the E0P V&V program. A 1 d i f d I- 1.5/091984

    .VAXC/85 3-26
               . _ . . _ _ .- _ _ . . _ . _ . . _   . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ ~ . . . . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ . _ . . . _ - _ _ _

, Figur@ 3-1.

DCRon CON Y N ImENTORv Pee. 1 1

3 4 MIN a DEVICE INSTRUE NT SERVICE SYSTEM MANLFACTURER RANGE SCALE 80AfD PADEL i NO BARSER DESCRIPTION 9eJMBER MODEL LS4ITS INCR IM SER ID i 128. XAN-3 ' TURSI SENCH 43 PANALARM - - CS SA/18 } AssaDICIATORS) 1

129. 21-3822 .SVPASS VLVS OPENING 51 P0X80A0 e-les PERCENT 3 C2 1A j JACM POS I

i 138. 21-3021 . LECH PRESS RES lee 51 158-1850 Se CE 1A

W6 EEL POS i

i 131. II-Sete MECH PRESS RES RELAY 51 POMSORO S-les PERCENT 2 C2 1A

,                                                                                                PISTON POS I

J 1st. zI-se14 ELECT PRESS RES SERVO 51 PON00A0 0-100 PERCENT 2 C2 1A l g MTR POS i e h3 l w ass. z!-seta PRESS CONTROL POS 51 ste-tels PSI E C2 la 4 i 134. ZI-8028 LOAD LIMIT PISTON POS 51 FOX 80R0 0-108 PERCENT t C2 1A j i j 185. 21-3024 SPEED & LOAO CHANGER 51 POM90A0 0-100 PERCENT 2 C2 IS POS 18 . PI-Sede STEAM CHEST PRESS 1 POMSORO e-2 PSIG X 1000 9.85 CR 18 l SST. PI-sest TURS 1ST STAGE PRESS 1 0-See PSIG 25 C2 18 l I 188. XZI-0 NO. 1 CNTR VLV ABOVE 1 0-R LITES - C2 It { SEAT DRAIN 1 139. XZI-9 NO. 2 CNTR VLV ASOVE 1 0-R LITES - C2 10 i SEAT ORAIN 1 2 1 14 . xzI-1. NO. CNTR vtv Ae0vE 1 0-R LITES - C3 to j SEAT DRAIN I + h

COMMUNICATIONS 6.2 VOICE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS 6.2.1 GUIDELINE COMPl.!ANCE CHECKLIST N/A Yes k RhComment l 6.2.1.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR -g l VOICE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS WM = kk Generally there are six varieties of voice com-g'

munication systems ~found in control rooms: 1 %I . Convendonal-powered telephones, sound-powered Qu . I m, telephones, walkietalkie radio transceivers, fixed- f# s *. '* N N '> band UHF transceivers, announcing systems, and d point-to point . Intercom systems. Human factors requirements specific to each type of voice com-g g gi . , .- J i munication system will be considered individually ,

in Guidelines 6.2.1.2 through 6.2.1.7 while 6.2.1.8 L will address voice communication by the operator -

                                                                                                                                                     +j wearing' an emergency mask. The following re-                        '

quirements are relevant to communication systems A# in general. BR <

g ._ _

1

s. INSTRUCTIONS-Instructions should be pro-vided for use of each communication system, including suggestad alternatives if a system becomes inoperable,

b. PERICOIC MAINTENANCE TESTS-Thess should be performed on all communication systems to ensure that the system is normally operative and effective under changes in ambient noise levels that may have occurred since the last check.

c. EMERGENCY MESSAGES (1) OUTGOING-Priority procedures should be established for to transmission of emergency messages from the control room by any of the communication sysams.

l (2) INCOMING-Procedures should be estab-lished for handling communications during an emergency and these proceduras must be known by all operators. i Figure 3-2. Sample Compliance Checklist 3-28 y , - . - - - -_,...,,,%m, _,,_., , y ...-,. - - _ , _ _ , , . _ e- - - - - , . ,- --y - _.

DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW l CONTROL ROOM SURVEY l REFERENCE / COMMENT FORM 0 ATE: PAGE ng OBSERVER: LOCATION: GUIDELINE CRITERIA ITEM NO.: HED REFERENCE NO.: SU8 PANEL REFERENCE /COMENT ELEM N O. CO OLE NO. l DI AGRAM/ PHOTO NO.: 6 m

l l l IV.A REVIEW PLANT COLLECT OPER. TASK WRITER'S Gul0E DOCUMENTS DATA PER E0P H. F. REVIEW IV.C.3 PLANT SPECIFIC CALC.

                                                    +     REVIEW FOR E0Ps COLLECT E0P &

SYSTEMS DATA IV.C.1

E0P TABLE-TOP REVIEW 1 r 1 r 1 r OLV ' '^" "

SELECT SOEs + REVISE TASK DATA p GENTS

EOP V&V ORM

                                  +                           +

INCORPORATE p CO LLECT OPER. STEP DATA STEP DATA PER EOP

ESTABLISH E0P DATA BASE

ADD INSTRUMENT INVENTORY DATA PER E0Ps DATA BASE

GENERATE EOP DATA SHEETS j FOR INST. ADEQUACY

                                  +    IV.C.2.b EVALUATE INST.

ADEQUACY PER E0Ps i r + IDENTIFY TASKS PER SOEs l+ RESOLVE 0;ZREPANCIES PREPARE / SUBMIT E0P V&V FORMS i L .'A SHEETS 4 RAMS 4 VERIFICATION FIG. 3-14 ! Figure 3-4. E0P and DCRDR Integrated System Function and Task Analysis l 3-30

E0P SOE Basic Plant Safety Function (1) System No. A B C D 01 02 03 04 1 2 3 4 5 1 X X X X X X 2 X X X X 3 X 4 X X X X 5 X 6 X X etc. (1) A = Core Cooling; B = Primary Containment Integrity; C = Reactivity Control; D = Fission Prodtet Control Figure 3-5 Major Plant Systems Addressed and Utilized 1.5/091984 , .VAXC/85 3-31

f 1.0

LEVEL 3.5 k -

3.6 Y CONTROL LEVEL PRESSURE ENTRY CONTROL CONTROL CONDITIONS 3.1 h l PUT RX MODE i t i 3.5.1 9 3.5.5 t TE IF BORON IF RPV IF RPV M INTA N ENTER 3.2 h INJECTION LVL NOT FLOOD'G COOLDOWN-RPV LVL 3 N EQ'D TO LVL 8 EMERGENCY SOUND CT EVAC ALARM us hYES hYES hYES 3.5.2 h j 3.3 h ENTER ENTEH STEP 4.2, IF aPV STEP 4.6, EMERG RPV DEPRESS CAN'T BE w DO SCRAM & AND STEP 4.5, RESTORED 8 AUTO ISOLATION LVL/PWR RPV FLOODING > LVL 3

                                            .                             PROCEDURES 3

p 3.4 h STE MAINTAIN m l w 3 VERIFY AUTO 4.6 LVL > TAF STEP STE w to ACTIONS 4.5 ro 4.2 l i o 4

                                             '                                                                                                         3.5.3 h              3.5.4 Y
                                                         '                                                                                                                     IF RPV IF RPV CAN BE g                                                                                                         MAINTAINED CAN'T BE MAINTAINED n                                                                                                           > TAF                > TAF 7                                                                                     ,

S kYES

NO [lF ADS TIMER YES ENTER STEP g -b 4.1,LFVEL: \ INtTIATED RESTORATION ENTER C00LDOWN. RESET AOS TIMER l EMERGENCY STE 4.1

      =
                             ?                                                                                       \                                                                 ;,4 M/                   p ay V

[{}

                                       ..~.
                                                                 ~'                                                                      E m d fy k.

5 S }d b;5hbi $ g.h$

m m ' ~ ~

NI oI

                                                                                                                                                                                             'if L} '

f n J (I (1/ , jgr T438F S ' E b fb ., g .. -

                                                                                                                                   - ,er as4*.                                                   - qc .

y' , }g\ t .. ,) w _ 6' L

                                                                                                                                                                  .s G_lj.                       . ,,o,

r ,

                                                                                                                     .-                                           e..       ,,ktsQ , %k 7

g; .$ , ".. ei Nt . e > 1 g ; r. Nm. -

                                                                                                            ,7                                                                                  k'4 1%

sca *- i r* ,- mu '". 1 sY.

e - m ,- , j . .c .

65 a mro **. 3C3 M

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  =
                                                                       .m                ..

f_$ ~ 34 r Figure 3-7 Typ: cal Photomosaic Mock-up

,..+,, -

                        . .m.-
                               . .: . r a .~ -         ~. ;m3.,.n? m.a                              v v , v ::   .  <- -       #
                                                                                                                                 .,     x...       s.     -: :.         .

r.+ - ~ ea r-y8 .

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                , s,t .
 - -:                                                                                                                                                                                                     ' .3. . .,4, .z:-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ,hI ..

.4 '_ %:}~g,}. 2 .

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          .. tw ..
     "                                                                                                                                                                                                    '%$ .;. . ..i
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          .'3.-                            s
                                                                                                                                                                                                           '-,e ,.g . :.

i '. E0P OR SOE DATA RECORD f4-s b n - *.

y $[.%.

       ,'                                                                                                                                                                                                  r.g g'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ~. .

SOE .j ....g- l-PROC * '4 v. 4 ' ' ' .4 -

   .7 .
                                                                 -      OPER STEP                                                                                                                            C J M>~

TASK OR STEP CONTROL ROOM ?.' Kh

,J.                                                                     DESCRIPTION                                                 INVENTORY                                                              fr .f &'"

s - TASK OR STEP DATA BASE-

   .y                                                                                                                                                                                                          0 ~ !..[ , y
                                                                                                                                                                                                               ., ._ n
         ~

REQUIREMENT y g -.:] ALTERNATE TASK

                                                                                                                                                                                                           'V N' 't1 9~'                                                                                                                                                                                                        -4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        . .i . ,.
       .                                                                 DESCRIPTION                                                                                                                       e4 t. : , .

>? - OPERATOR '.i - {t.Q.Sa,h e 8: ; ., . , c -

                                                                                                                                                                                                               ,.a.e..                         . . <

u. s I <

c,.. . .

. ,V.                 ?,  .

l DEVICE NO. l= . C..;'- .,, ' . l.

 .f; _
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       *. ' .j * .
       .-l                                                        -

INSTRUMENT NO. G.,;.TJ m M 1 SERVICE 0, 4,' - ; -

.$                                                                        DESCRIPTION                                                                                                                         i.; .c.*

a. "..

^~

                                                                  -       RANGE, UNITS                                                                                                                        ' 'Y ~

g" ", , MIN. SCALE - - - - - '/ '+ >

  , .J INCREMENT                                                                                                                            . I'~ N T.

SYSTEM NO. ... .: 's. .

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ~. ';*.:.....r eg.

BOARD NO.

l - PANEL NO.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   = * ' ' * '  "_ir ?
    ;,                                                                         s                                                                                                                                   <
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       .( + .ct,.

s. 4 . y f&

 .g.                                                                                                                                                                                                            - -=: . Gr lN p.                            h.j.

Wp .

       . . , _                                                                                                                                                                                                     ' ~ .; .

3

                 ',                                                                                                                                                             .                                    = :. .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           .c . . -

l .:::s. a. z $ y

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .; y .,. . . .
                                  ,                                                                                                                                                                                    ..,,-g-

+ t, o.*: <f 3'

  . +s:

a g .' <. .4.. +-;

1. .T y.

y. . , . ' , . , ,

s s. -e'.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ., , y,} A .'

. l Figure 3-8 SFTA Data Base Record Definition ( -: ;,$ 2 0. E ; l,

.-:p
               .                              s                                                                                                                                                                     W .:                                  <.

p. b 1.5/091984 ,, Ili .n' G- VAXC/85 ' ';.'c.p. .

n.. 3-34 * :,.. -

g.v s.g (i

, ;.. s .

i , _ .;qq. - . _ :* ; _ y, ; .-' ;+ ,. e .

                                                                                                                 .-*4W;.
                                                                                                                     . -: _ r.+y:

n

                                                      - . _ .       ,g                       :-~1         - '                -
                                                                                                                                   #_,%'~.
  , ' . ' .' s _
                                                                                                                                                         ..g. ?                                                               .
                            ,         ;  ;-\_ :.+ . , _. ~ :w:;, , J ,, ng y . - v.;n Q            .7,
                                                                                                                                                                , ' ' , . ^ '. .' .+ . .,- ;'> .%
                                                                                                                                                                                               ;- ' ' .' . y . -. . %g                     _ y. '-         . .

Figure 3-9. E0P & DC TED SFTA E0P or SOE: ------------------------------------------------ DATA SHEET #1: OPERATOR PRIMARY & ALTERNATE TASKS ALTERNATE TASK TASK TASK DESCRIPTION REQUIRiiMENT DESCRIPTION REF

  . T: Monitor / adjust                     Controls &                     N/A plcntparameters during                  indicators normal plant operation 0 1005 power
   .T:-R:spond to numerous                  See subtasks                   See subtasks claras and systems cutosctions for E0P cntry conditions ST: Determine RPV                       RPV water level                Initiate RPV flooding t=ter level
                                            <             inches above TAF ST: Determine DW                        DW pressure &                . Assume DW press & temp prc2 ure and~                           temperature                    entry conditions exist temperature
                                            >             psig
                                            >             Deg-F ST: Determine SP                        SP level                       Assume SP level entry lovel                                                                  conditions exist
                                            )+            or

(+ inches

  -T: Vsrify Reactor                        See subtasks                   See subtasks
  .cerca i     .________________________________________

ST: Verify control Control Rod Initiate reactor power roda_ inserting . position control thru RPV water level & Baron injection Decreasing

   .ST: Verify reactor                      Reactor power                  Initiate reactor power i

po:or decreasing status control thru RPV water level & boron l i n,t ecti on 1 1 Rapid decrease from 100% 3-35

Figure.3-10. (TYPICAL) E0P & DCRDR INTEGRATED SFTA ' Page 1 E0P or SOE: DATA SEET #2: OPERATOR STEPS IN TASK SEQUENCE ALTEMATE LOCATIN OPER . TASK or STEP TASK DEVICE TASK SYSTEM BOARD PMEL SOE REF STEP DESCRIPTION REQUIREMNT USED DESCRIPTI(N ' NO M) NO OPER 4 . le . T: Monitor / adjust plant Controls & N/A paranaters during indicators normal plant operation S leet power it 4 1.88 .T: Respond to numerous See subtasks See subtesks alarms and systems auto j actions for E0P entry conditions i 4 1.86 ST: Determine RPV RPV water level Initiate RPV flooding water level w 0 m 4 1.67 Observe RPV water level ( Inches ab E TAF

                                                                                                                              ~    -        - -

4 1.89 Observe RPV ( inches - - - - water level ab E TAF 0 1.11 Observe RPV water ( inches ~ - - - level ab E TAF 4 1.13 Observe RPV water ( inches ~ - - - level ab E TAF 4 1.26 ST: Determine DW DW pressure & Assuma DW press & ten, pressure and tm perature entry conditions exist tenperature

Figura-3-11 (TYPICAL) F.0P & DCRDR INTEGtATED SFTA Page E0P or SOE: - DATA SHEET $3: Ilf0RMATION & C(NTROL CAPA8ILITY, RESJIRED vs AVAILABLE SERVICE MIN LOCATION OPER TASK or STEP TASK DEVICE DESCRIPTION, SCALE SYSTEM BOARD PAPEL - SOE ~ REF STEP DESCRIPTION RESJIRGENT USED RANGE,tNITS INCR NO NO NO OPER 4 .le T: Monitor / adjust plant ' Controls &' i parameters during indicators normal plant operation i G 188% power 4- 1.08 T: Respond to numerous See subtasks alarms an3 systems auto actions for E0P entry

conditions-4 1.85 ST: Determine RPV RPV water level water level 4

w 4 1.67 Observe RPV watec ( inches (Service Description) ~* - - - - e level ab E TAF w

    "                                                                                  (Range, Units) 4 4          1.e9   Observe RPV                  (         inches                 (Service Description)  -        -       -                    -                              -

water level ab E TAF j (Range, Units) 3 4 1.11 Observe RPV w.ater < inches (Service Description) - - - - - level ab E TAF

,                                                                                      (Range, Units) i 2

4 1.13 Observe RPV water < Inches (Service Description) - - - - - level ab E TAF i (Range, Units)

!       4          1.2c   ST: Determine DW            DW pressure &

pressure and ter9erature

;                         temperature I

a

l I

I 1

                \                                  -                 .

l 4

                                       .                             e l

1

                                                ,h _ E      O
                   ~=^E! =B"-i =M  V%

[E>-- - - s a o - - o G G h_ ,es

                            , $$             '444 4444 4444

_ i 3 sh - i - at =MMMENENM- 6 N .585.8 G -

                                    '              -     -       <                 1 creer               I TURSINE GEastRATOR r

l Figure 3-12. Sampic Operational Sequence Diagram l l 1

   -                                                                               l l

3-38 4

LEGEN0: OCS CRT - REACTOR OPERATOR , SPOS CRT- h PMS CRT - h ARM /PRM - REACTOR OPERATOR h STAND BY INFORMATION PANEL P-864 P-678 NUCLENET

O O

         /                                 1 CPERATOR 6

1 P-680 1 2 ( , ,

                                                                               ,                        o BOP NSSS CONTROL                                                          2                         CONTROL PANEL                            2                                                           PANEL P-601 I

CONSOLE

                                                                       /         2 80P                                               h/

P-877 / P-870 P-679 2 80P , BOP AUXILIARY AUXILIARY CONTROL PANEL CONTROL PANEL P-800 P-801 Figure 3-13. Typical Link Diagram 3-39

l E0P & DCRDR ' INTEGRATED SFTA (FIG. 3-4) 1 P V.C.I. EVALUATE DATA PER E0P V&V PROGRAM 1 r RESOLVE DISCREPANCIES ; PREPARE / SUBMIT E0P V&V FORMS I 1 r N CHE S O PREPARE / SUBMIT HEOs SUBMIT POTENTIAL HEOs TO VAllDATION PHASE 1 r VALIDATION (FIG. 3-16) ) l l Figure 3-14. E0P & DCROR Integrated Verification. l 3-40 1

DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN RNVIEW VERIFICATION / VALIDATION REFERENCE / COMMENT FORM DESERVER: OATE: PAGEJF LOCATION: [ Gul0ELINE CRITERIA ITEM NO.: HE0 REFERENCE NO.: REFERENCE / COMMENT ELE 0. S RE CdNS E NO l DIAGRAM / PHOTO NO.: Figure 3-15. Sample Verification / Validation ' Reference / Comment Form 3-41

E0P & DCROR (FIG.3-14) INTEGRATED VERIFICATION

SELECTS 0Es & TASKS FOR VAll0ATION

EVALUATE WALK / TALK-THROUGH PER EOP V&V PROGRAM

RESO LVE DISCREPANCIES PREPARE / SUBMIT E0P V&V FORMS _. + = EVALUATE WALK / TALK-THROUGH PER OCROR CHECKLIST

                      +             __

RESOLVE P0TENTIAL HEOs ? PREPARE / SUBMIT HEOs FROM VERIFICATION PHASE

IDENTIFY TIME-DEPENDENT ASPECTS FOR SIMULATOR

EVALUATE SIMULATOR ACTIVITY PER E0P V&V PROGRAM

RESOLVE DISCREPANCIES O PREPARE / SUBMIT E0P V&V FORMS

r EVALUATE SIMULATOR i ACTIVITY PER OCROR CHECKLISTS 1

RESOLVE ALL POTENTIAL PREPARE / SUBMIT HEOs HEOs ! + PREPARE / SUBMIT FINAL ECP V&V FORMS

PREPARE 0CROR DOCUMENTS Figure 3-16. E0P and DCRDR Integrated Validation 3-42

4.0 DCRDR ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION The assessment for the dispositioning of all HE0s identified in the DCRDR will be conducted in a manner consistent with the objectives of NUREG-0700 and NUREG-0801 and will be performed by the Assessment and Implementation Team (AIT) identified in Table 2-1. The results of the assessment will be Humm Engineering Discrepancies (HEDs, significant HE0s) with correction methods selected , and non-HEDs for which corrective actions will be optional. The AIT will be assisted in this task by the assessment data base, one of three in the Data Base Management System defined for the DCRDR of the Clinton Power Station. The data base will be a collection of data records as defined in Section 3.1.3. Each record will be uniquely defined by the HE0 number throughout the assessment. See Figure 4-1 for a sample printout of the HE0 form. The AIT will develop background information for this task from a review of the pertinent NRC documentation, NUREG-0737 Supplement 1, NUREG-0700 and NUREG-0801, this program plan, all summary reports issued by the Design Review Team and all the HE0s submitted to the AIT for review. Other , references such as EPRI NP-2411, Human Engineering Guide for Enhancing Nuclear Control Rooms will be reviewed. In addition, the following information is required during the assessment meetings: e Technical Specification Safety Limits

             'o   Operating Limits o   Limiting Conditions for Operations o   LERs 1.5/091984 VAXC/#94 4-1

4.1 OBJECTIVE The objective of the Assessment and Implementation, Task will be to evaluate the HE0s resulting from the program, assign categories, recommend appropriate corrective actions, schedules and methods for verifying and validating corrective actions and document the process. , l 4.2 METHODOLOGY The assessment methodology developed for the Clinton Power Station is presented in Figure 4-2 which summarizes review team definition, team scope of responsibilities and HE0 routing. The assessment process is defined in terms of HE0 categorization (Figure 4-3) and analysis for corrections (Figure 4-4). A written procedure for HE0 assessment will be developed by the AIT prior to the start of this process. 4.2.1 NE0/HED Categorization Figures 4-2 through 4-G show the categorization process. The following describes this process:

1. The AIT will review the entire HE0 (Figure 4-1) as presented followed by an open discussion to assure complete understanding of the observation. The human factors specialist will be available to answer questions during this phase of the assessment. In this process, the AIT may request clarification of the wording of the HE0 description. This will be covered in the comment section with reference to an attached rewording.

l 1.5/091984 VAXC/f94 4-2

2. The AIT will then dete mine which category to assign the HE0 under j review. The process to be used is shown typically in Figure 4-3.

The DCRDR process encourages the reporting of all observations, recognizing that the AIT is staffed with personnel qualified to assess the significance of each observation. Assessment will be based on an analysis of the impact of each observation on operating crew performance (workload) and overall plant safety and reliability. Those observations that are judged to have a high potential impact on plant safety and reliability will be categorized as HEDs per the classification rated below and the r.on-significant observations will be classified as HE0s. Tables 4-1 and 4-2 are modifications of NUREG-0631 criteria to be used to assess the significance of HE0s. The four categories to be used in the categorization precess are defined below:

1. Category A - HE0s AsscWtad with Documented or Potential Errors.

Category A includes HE0s which are known to have previously caused or contributed to an operating error as documented in a Licensee Event Report (LER) or other historical record, or as established by the interview (or questionnait e) responses of operations personnel, or which have the potential to cause an error of high safety consequence.

2. Category B - HE0s Associated with Safety Considerations.

Category B includes those HE0s that have a low potential to cause an unsafe condition. 1.5/091984 . VAXC#94 4-3

4

3. Category C - HEOs Associated with Availability or Reliability Considerations.

Category C- includes HEOs which have been assessed and

                                                  -determined to have minimal                                           potential for causing or
                                                  . contributing to unsafe conditions but impact electrical                                          l generating capabilities.-

4. Category D - HEOs that are Minor or Non-Significant.

l-Category D includes any observation that has been evaluated and determined neither to increase the potential for cat. sing or contributing to a human error nor to have adverse safety consequences. Figure 4-3 includes a branch where HE0s may be reconsidered due to the cumulative or interactive effects of mul tiple HE0s. . Otherwise, HE0s could be discounted as non-significant and dropped out - of the assessment and improvement process. Effects of 1

combined category HE0s will be considered during the selection of a correction method. Category D HE0s are optional and wili be considered for correction by the Illinois Power Company based on cost-benefit.-

I

3. The next step is to log the HE0/HED. Those. observations that are categorized A through C will be assigned an HED number to be.

logged on a master log sheet gsee Figure 4-5). HED numbers will be assigned based upon an alpha-numeric code, with the first digit , being keyed to the NUREG-0700, Section 6 topic; i.e...Workspace = l l 1 Conuiunications = 2. Annunciator = 3, etc. The next letter )' designaies the category (A -through D) and the last three digits . L are assigned in sequence withic each of the four categories. All observations classified as Hf.Ds by both the AIT and approved by the Program Manager must be included in the improvement process. . l l YkXC

4.2.2 Corrective Actions The AIT will then review the suggested corrective action noted in each HE0 form. Again, the human factors specialist will be available for clarifications, if necessary. The team will then select a correction method. See Figures 4-4, 4-6 and Table 4-3.

1. Selection of Correction Method Five possible correction methods are available to the AIT for further action as follows:

A. Enhancement B. Design Change C. Design Improvement Study D. Operating Procedure Change E. Administrative Procedure Change To select enhancement when a design change is more appropriate will not be critical. 050uld either enhance. ment, design change or improvement study, or a combination of methods prove inadequate or inappropriate, procedure cht.nge3 may be chosen for correcting or mitigating HEDs. During the selection of a correction method, the AIT will consider all correction methods. Where several methods are proposed, the reasons for selecting a particular method will be documented. This documentation will be attached to the basic HE0/HED form. While a particular correction method for an individual HE3 may anpear appropriate, an alternative correct *iort method may be more appropriate when the HEDs are grouped. After all HEDs have been analyzed for correction, the AIT will re-evaluate all similar HEDs selected for a particular correction method, to ensure that the method chosen is , appropriate and core' stent throughout the control room. 1.5/091984 VAXC/f94 4-5 J k

 ,       -,     . . - -    . . _ . - .______.._..y_,              - , , . _ _ , , . , . , . . ._ . _..--,,,,____,,y, ,

l l l HED correction by enhancement, design change, design study, or procedure changes is described below. In each case, analysis will be weighted towards using the judgement of the review team members in developing recommendations. Any special analyses employed in the development of recommendations will be documented and identified by an attachment. l The following approaches will be considered: A. Enhancement Corrections Development of enhancements will proceed soon after completion of the selection process, since an enhancement typically provides a significant improvement quickly at low cost. In some cases, the enhancement may be implemented as an interim solution while a long-ten.: design solution is being developed. In this way, the dilema of providing a near-term solution as well as an integrated control room design in the long-term will be resolved. Figu e 4-6 gives some examples of types of enhancements. B. Design Cyrections Design corrections are those corrections develope 11 through planned design efforts. Tne AITs responsibilities will be to produce preliminary conceptual design recommendations. The specificity of a recommendation will vary with the type and extent of the HED, A recommendation will specify: o Problem Statement o Scope of Work o Design Objectives 1.5/091984 VAXC/f94 4-6

6 Recommendations will -be based on preliminary design analysis performed by the AIT. Analyses may include alternate solution identification, comparison and selection for the case of a simple, isolated HED. Preliminary analysis will provide a preliminary conceptual design requiring further design analyses and engineering. C. Design Improvement Studies i-The correct resolution to some HEDs may require correlation with other HEDs to assure an integrated correction. (For . instance labeling, color, type, size, wording, location, etc.) In these instances, a design improvement is- the correction method to assure that all- parameters are included in .the solution, and the AIT will probably recommend that a study be done. D. Procedure Correction 4 Changes to existing procedures will be considered as a possible means of correcting an HED. Indeed, the source of the HED may be found in the way the procedure was originally written. Correction of an HED by-enhancement or redesign of the panels to conform to a procedure could introduce other potential errors and should therefore be avoided. Procedure revisions may also be very effective for correcting HEDs where the procedure is not the root cause of the HED. Design limitations may dictate using less than optimal type of control (or placement of a control) to accomplish a particular

function, resulting in an HED. Procedures may then be used to compensate for the control's deficiency.

1.5/091984 V1.XC/f94 4-7

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

The types of procedure changes chosen to correct or mitigate the effects of an HED may include, but are not limited to: o A change in procedure format o Improved quality of reproduction o Larger or more legible type o Inclusion of cautionary statements o Re-ordering operator tasks The AIT will recommend changes to procedures. The actual changes will be made in accordance with Illinois Power Procedures. All procedure changes will be evaluated according to a verification and validation procedure covering corrective actions. In general the AIT will determine what recommendations need to be mocked-up and will define the need and method for further verification and/or validation. The mock-up will be very useful for this action.

2. Program Manager Review and Sign-Off The Program Manager will review each HE0/HED after each HE0/HED has been reviewed by the AIT, with recommendations / revisions and the appropriate priorities and HED nu- 5ers assigned. This review will provide management input into the DCRDR and assure overall

+ coordination o/ the various segments of the corrective actions suggested by the AIT. The senior human factors consul tant and ! principal investigator will be available to assist the Program Manager. - The Program Manager may request clarification, change priorities, categories or implementation schedules. 1.5/091984 l l VAXC/f94 4-8 l 1

Any revision to the HE0/HED category will require a new HED number, and will be recorded by the " REY:" entry on the HE0 assessment format, with a "1" and the date, indicating that a first revision has been made, etc., and that a new HED number has t,een assigned. For record purposes, the original HE0/HED will have the new number recorded under the Program Manager Review section. - as "See new HED " . The original HE0/HED will then be attached to the revised HED, and the

       " Support Material Attached" box will be chscled on the revised HED.

When the Program Manager has finished all discussion / revision of the HED, he will sign and date the form. Implementation of the corrective actions agreed upon then takes place through normal plant change routines.

3. Results The results of the HE0 Assessment and HED Improvement process will be recomendations for changes to the control room design er to the operating procedures intended to reduce the potential for operator error.- HEDs recommended for study will be closed out when the implementation study results are complete.

There will -be two types of design recomendations. One type will be detailed enhancement correction recomendations for surface treatments requiring limited financial and time resources. The second type will be design correction recomendations for the implementation of a systems engineering design project to develop detailed design ) corrections; i.e., corrections requiring more significant financial and time resources. l' Further studies may result in significant evaluation, analysis, and fire designs to resolve the deficiency prior to implementation. 1 1.5/091984' VAXC/#94 4-9

Where the design approach would be inappropriate for correcting a given HED, recomendations for changes to procedures may be made. These recomendations may include substantive changes in the procedures and/or simple modifications to the format. Recommendations for improvement will be supported by documents produced throughout the assessment process. This information may be : useful in prioritizing implementation of recomendations or to justify a decision not to implement the recomendations. 4.2.3 Documentation Documentation of the assessment and improvement process will be consistent with procedures and will include records of HE0/HED assessment. The records will be necessary for historical purposes and will be required for subsequent steps in the process; particularly correction method selection. Correction analysis will be documented in the form of design recomendations , design improvement studies or procedure changes. The recomendations will be supported by engineering drawings, photos, conceptual sketches, calculations or other cuitable materials as necessary. Special emphasis will be placed on documenting justi ficationr, not to correct a significant HED and to record dissenting opinions, including the human factors specialist. l l l l l 1.5/091984 VAXC/f94 4-10

TABLE 4-1 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING HEOs (MDDIFIED FROM NUREG-0801) Consider the following. Will this HE0: Probab1y Possibly, Not L,1,ke,17

1. cause undue operator fatigue?

2. cause operator confusion?

3. cause cperator discomfort?

4. present a risk of injury to control room personnel?

5. increase the operator's mental workload (for example, by requiring interpolation of values, remembering inconsistent or unconventional control positions, etc.).

6. distract control room personnel from their duties?

7. affect th's operator's ability to see or read accurately?

8. affect the operator's ability to hear correctly?

9 e 1.5/091984 1AXC/f94 4-11

TABLE 4-1 (cont.) Probably . Possibly Not Likely

9. degrade control room personnel performance? i 1

10. degrade the operator's ability to manipulate controls correctly?

11. cause a delay of necessary feedback to the operator?

12. degrade positive feedback about control task (s)?

13. violate control room conventions or practices?

14. violate nuclear industry conventions?

15. violate societal stereotypes?

16. involve highly stressful tituations (i.e., highly time constrained, of I serious consequ'ences, etc.)?

l

17. lead to inadvertent activation or de-activation of controls?

18. cause a specific error? Is it probable that another error of equal or more serious cor. sequences will be committed?

1.5/091984 , VAXC/f94 I 4-12 l L

TABLE 4-2 NE0 PUUIT IMPACT EVALUATION CRITERIA Probably Possibly Not Likely Does the HE0 involve controls or displays that are used by operators while executing emergency procedures? It is likely that the errcr caused by this HE0 would result in:

A violation of a technical specification, safety limit, or a limiting condition for operation?- The unavailability of a safety-related system needed to mitigate transients or system needed to safely shut down the plant? Does this HE0 involve controls or displays that are part of an engineered safety function or are associated with a reactor trip function? Does this HE0 involve control or display problems that would not be readily identified or corrected by alarms, interlocks or other instruments? 1 1.5/091984 VAXC/f94 4-13

               -.      p     +%   fi%-- --,. --%-me_c -. , .,e..-  -, e -.- --+.-e-w --e,i--m -w*--e. bn-y,   y -

r-TABLE 4-3 HE0 RESOLUTION CRITERIA l In evaluating how to resolve a given HEO, the AIT will consider the following questions: Yes Possibly No

1. Is the HE0 really a deficiency? ___

2. Due to its unique nature, does the HE0 re-quire further study or assessment?

3. Can the HE0 be resolved with paint / tape /

label enhancements?

4. Should the HE0 be resolved to maintain consistency with control room conventions or standards?

5. Is the HE0 part of a larger or generic HE07

6. Is the HE0 so minor that no physical change

         .is needed and the only action required is to establish operator awareness in routine training?

7. Does the recommended fix really address the issue of concern?

1.5/091984 VAXC/f94 4-14

TABLE 4-3 (cont.) Yes Possibly No I

8. Is the operator's ability to respond to any plant transient or accident degraded by implementing the recommended change?

9. Are there other, more cost-effective methods to resolve the HE0?

10. Is the HE0' in the process of resolutioni with an existing design change?

11. Could this HE0 result in significant plant downtime or personnel injuries?

12. Could resolution of this HE0 provide in-creased operator productivity and morale?

J.

13. Is the recommendation consistent with pre- ,_

sent control room characteristics and practices?

14. Does the proposed change create any new HE0s?

1.5/091984 VAXC/#94 4-15

E E T T A : A : D n D n o o s s a a e e R R g g i n i n w w o o l l l N l o A o F M F R . r I . r e o A e o t F H t F o C o N t m r N t '

              / i                                       / i t     m                          o t      m                                   n b                            F n    b e u e u                                       m a                            t m a :                                     m eR n o                        n m

o R e no o e C s n E C A s a m M & a i h e s E h e v t e R s I t e R E i t / e T V i t / m W a e s N E R W au e . u t s E . t r r r o A M r r l o a u u a l N S L A u u a N m c c v / n S c c v / a no no ee n t E C n n e t t o S I o o e Rn e s C C R e i S A C C a m t A M m n m a C m a o E E ] ] ] o m

                                                    ]   ]    ]

C v G T [ r I E B G R E N n I A E G T P E O E I T U T A T T L N S V E I S 0 A e B r H D T A L A I S M R E E T T A I M L E C T U T [ [ C [ [ [ e T llI1IiIIlIIlIIIi111111III!l1lIiIll lI111111lII111III s A b T O R g S ' n O i r e B e I T # n E R i E O L g B G E A E C n S 8' E a E D 0 T 0 ) : m G E E A E 3 N u e H H D H ( O H u R I N O N T e R O A l R I T p E S N N I E m O R V M a I E S T T R L N R E P A P O O R I R R D M . E E I 1 C P D A U A S N D - E O E 4 D E R A G L M D E M N E E I O M C u O E N E M g H E R O i C T C E F A O R g T P T _ _ _ _ _ L T T R E I 0 L T t P _ I L S R K T E A S S N ]

 ~          L A         L L        A       [
 ~          P T         C     C    P i l[

DESIGN REVIEW TEAM g------+

PERFORMS REVIEW 4- - - - -- - q l
PREPARES HE0 FORMS IMPLEMENTATION g I I I l OBSERVATIONS l g i u l

      !                    ASSESSMENT AND                                   l
      $                    IMPLEMENTATION TEAM                              l L -- - - ---          e ASSESS l

HE0 OBSERVATIONS g REJECTED e CATEGORIZE p ASSESSMENT OBSERVATIONS PROCESS ! e DIRECTS ANALYSIS I [" - - - - - - > FOR CORRECTIONS

RECOMMENDS I

l l g DISPOSITION l I 1 I HEDs

      !                                                                     l l                    PROGRAM MANAGER                                  I L_----__              . REVIEWS HEDs               ---------J ASSESSMENT

REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS ASSESSMENT REJECTED APPROVED LEGEND:

HE0 - HUMAN ENGINEERING OBSERVATIONS HED - HUMAN ENGINEERING OISCREPANCY Figure 4-2. Assessment and Implementation Flow Diagram 4-17

Assessant scTon cmfimA cans. a==sena==T FAcron mmunr m0N SAFETY mPonTANet - unsafe PnotFTLY INVEW PnocEss otsEnVATIoNs Al conomen on Tucu suc vmAnon a smTY =====anos mean Tenu c HEUAAIUTY/AWAllABluTY coNV.ou, AGE

                                                                                     =        ~~ ~                                                                     ~

l Ass,ss a ,s.: nocumsmiss men 1

                                                                               "8
                            .of_on ma2a

_sAr m usoA 7a tow ns sAr m comsmanAnow no PoTsunauY us uns m conomos no smancAmt ns PmAmetAL toss No YEs mitnACTM

                  -                                                                                    on cumutanvr ANALYSIS
.                                                                                                                    no                                                                                           ran connecnon v

d b tow SAFETY YEs - mWUcAnoN YII PonNnAL ' Fan Efmon WIsH on

                                                                                                                     ,so                                                                                 nicommmo         ns no conneenons n:         munAcnvi                                no o                                       No oft CumuLATM ooCumENT l

(1) See Table 4-1 for Criteria 1 Figure 4-3.. HE0 Processing 4-18

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

                                             ,,,e           , . , _ , ,
      ++

8 ,%' I k IMAGE EVALUATION /j// fI#, 4 g[ff<r # 4 pff e@ /% e/ TEST TARGET (MT-3) 9,,,,"+ #4,,4*z$+4 ,p

      +                                                   %
            ,         1.0      5 En E E9ILE I.1     !. - EE
                                ~

({$ l.8 u-1.25 1.4 1.6 4 IS0mm - >

       <                       6"                         >
     #   *%                                        /* 4%
 +?!g$>,,,fff s<3;3g.4
       %f ;
              +_                                   ,

Y :

[ HUMAN ENGINEERING OISCREPANCIES \ TO BE ANALYZED FOR OCRRECTION j (FROM THE HED SELECTION PROCESS)

1r ANALYSIS FOR CORRECTION BY ENHANCEMENT 1 r CORRECT WITH YES ENHANCEMENT

          ,                                                                  NO 5r ANALYSIS TO 10ENTIFY DESIGN                                                                
                                            .MPPO# MENT ALTERNATIVES AND SELECT RECOMMENDEO SOLUTION                                                      DESIGN IMPLEMENT DOCUMENT e FUNCTION ANALYSIS 4 ______________q e ALLOCATION                                                   I MAN                                             I MACHINE e VERIFY ALLOCATION --------*l                               '
                                                 +

e SELECT PREFERRED DESIGN ALTERNATIVE

e VAL 10 ATE DESIGN----------*8 FULLY SCHEDULE NOT CORRECTED IMPLEMENTATION J TIFY ANO CORREGED ASSESS EXTENT OF CORRECTION 5 00CUMENT PARTIALLY CORRECTED

'/

DOCUMENT CU ENT IMP N 10N Figure 4 4 Selection of Design Improvements 4-19

                                                                              ~, . , , -     ,,,m--,       .-    ,--r-.-   . - - - - - - - - .   ---w. -e--,v---- - , . , ,-
              ,        - - - , - - -          y    y-- , . - - - .

a DCRDR HE0 DISPOSITION LOG HE0 CL ITEMS BOARD NO. CATEGORY NO. COMMENTS l r I 1 ASSESSMENT TEAM LEADER DATE Pg of 1 i Figure 4-5 Sample Master Log Sheet 4-20 l I I i

  - ,                 en, ,   ...-w- - , ,-,w,,,-,------w,,-,.,,-w,e-c..--m-m,v,-wry.r-rsw--a--          -'-++*--*vv w-w+-- T - ^ = - -- ' - ' - - -

ENHANCEMENT: DEFINITION -CONTROL ROOM IMPROVEMENT BY SURFACE TREATMENT TECHNIOUES. ACTION WORDS - AOD, REMOVE, REPLACE, RE-LOCATE, MOOlFY, ADJUST, ORGANIZE. E X AMPLES:

         -LABELS:

CONTROLS FUNCTIONS DIS PL AYS ANNUNCI ATOR TITLES SYSTEMS

         -DEMARCATION & MIMICS:

LINES ZONES SYMBOLS CODING (COLOR, SH APE, ETC)

         -ENVIRONtAENT:

FURNISHINGS V ENTILATION ROOM COLOR (S) LIGHTING CABINET COLOR (S) NOISE LEVEL TEMPERATURE TRAFFIC PATTERN (S) FURNITURE LOCATION

          - DIS PL AYS:

RECORDER PAPER & SCALE INDICATOR SCALES

          -PROCEDURES VOLUMES:

ORG ANIZ ATIO N COLOR CODING LA8ELING

           - H ARDWAR E:

HANDLES METER FACES KNOBS l Figure 4-6. I Sample Enhancement Suitability Checklist 4-21

5.0 DOC N NTATION USED TO SUPPORT THE DCRDR 5.1 GENERAL COMENTS o A library has been established to assist the Design Review Team. The documents contained therein are the lastest plant construction documents consistent with Section 2.4.1 of NUREG-0700. o A reference library has been established containing pertir.ent human factors documents including many of those listed in NUREG-0700, as well as relevant documents generated in other DCRDRs and relevant EPRI and INP0 documents. 5.2 DOC N NTATION GENERATED BY THE DCRDR PROCESS The following basic docume-ts will be submitted to the NRC for approval as part of the DCRDR program: o Program Plan Report (this document). o Executive Summary Report, wnich will address methodology, review findings, and implementation. The following summary reports will be generated in support of the review. o Criteria Report o OER Report o SFTA & Verification and Validation of E0Ps Report o CRS Report o Inventory Report o Compilation of Observations & HEDs The format shown in Figure 5-1 will be considered for the Executive Summary Report. 1.5/091584 VAXC/96 5-1

5.3 DOCl#EllTATI0ll SYSTEM All0 C0llTROL

   .The human factors consultant will develop a data base which will be reviewed by the Design Review Team.        This data base will consist of computerized printouts and hard copy files of cross-referenced information i    including:

o Listings of reference plant documents used. o Listing of human factors referenced documents used. o The program plan report (this document). , o Pertinent documents defining requirements for the DCRDR. o The control room criteria report. o The outputs of the individual task groups (see Figure 2-3). o Minutes of meetings. o All findings, HEDs, and dispositions as processed, o Executive Summary Report. o Topical DCRDR Reports, o Pertinent correspondence. In addition, a filing system as shown in Appendix D will be developed. I l a l i 1.5/091584 VAXC/96 5-2

1

( t

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General Conenents 1.2 Purpose and Objectives

                - Describe E0P V&V and DCRDR integratic.:

1.3 Plant Description 1.4 Definition of Control Room 2.0 DCRDR PLAWING, ETH000 LOGY 2.1 Planning

                  - Sunnarize from program plan.

2.2 Methodology 2.2.1 General

                         - As required - - -

2.2.2 Criteria Development

                         - Suninary of information, (mainly from criteria report).
                         - Describe guidelines review k                                                                                        A Figure 5-1.         Executive Summary Format ,                ,

5-3

                                     . . - . - - _ - -                             . , - - = - - . - _ . . - - _ . . - -

I-r 7 2.2.3 Data Base Management System i

                                                                                                               )
                                 - Describe use, specific data' base and interactions.
                                - Some information from program plan.

2.2.4 Operating Experience Review

                                - Sumarize information from Operating Experience Review Report.
                     * - Describe interactions with E0P V&V and other DCRDR tasks.

2.2.5 Control Room Survey I

                               - Sumarize from Control Room Survey Report.
                              - Use of mock-up and other facilities.

2.2.6 Control Room Inventory

                              - Summarize information techniques for preparing Inventory Report.
                             - Use of mock-up.
                             - Describe data base record definition.
                                                                         .                                     I L                                                                                                    J l

Figure 5-1. Executive Summary Format (cont.) 5-4

f 3 2.2.7 E0P & DCRDR Integrated System Function and Task Analysis

             - Identify plant systems (per FSAR) covered by E0Ps.
             - Idantify plant systems per basic plant safety function.
             - Describe SOE selection criteria and 50Es selected (relationship to E0P V&V program).
            - Identify plant system (per FSAR) utilized in 50Es.
            - Describe E0P and SOE data collection, data base use and record definition.
            - Describe E0P and DCRDR SFTA integration
            - Describe data sheets and diagrams (SFTA output) used for analysis, verification and validation:
                  - Data sheets

thru 5.

                  - Traffic link diagrams.
                  - Operational sequence diagrams.
           - Some info from program plan.
           - Use of mock-up.

2.2.8 Assessment k Figure 5-1. Executive Sumary Format (cont.) 5.- 5

l f D l l

      DCRDR REsd73 3.1 Human Ingineering Observation Suneary
                 - Describe HEOs by task, checklist, assessment action and category.
                 - Show cross-reference to past control room review results.
                - Identify separate DCRDR task reports.

3.2 Human Engineering Discrepancy Sunnary

                - Describe HEDs by category.

l

                - Describe significant HEDs.

DCRDR CONCLUSIONS 4.1 HED Corrective Actions and Schedule I

               - Describe corre:tive actions to be taken and schedule.

1

               - Describe studies, if any, to be conducted to determine correction action and schedule.

{ 4.2 Remaining Work

              - Describe task data base status.
              - Describe remaining work for:

l l

                   - All DCRDR tasks.                       '

l

                   - Integration plan covering NUREG-0737, Supplement 1.

k Figure 5-1. Executive Summary Format (concl.) 5-6

6.0 SUlstARY The Illinois Power Company considers that this program plan for the Detailed Control Room Design Review of the Clinton Power Station Unit 1 is extensive, complete and consistent with the pertinent documents noted herein. The program is in progress and it is our intention to comply with the content of this program plan. The Illinois Power Company reserves the right to make changes in its best interest and will notify the NRC of all planned or executed deviations as part of its final documentation submittal, or sooner, if necessary. ( i 1.5/091984 VAXC/96 6-1

APPENDIX A QUALIFICATION OF DESIGN REVIEW TEAM MEM ERS i l l 1.5/092084 VAXC/161 i l

l 1 l DOUGLAS M. ANTONELLI Illinois Power Company Member of Design Review Team EDUCATION Richland Community College A.S. degree TRAINING Electronic Technical "A" School, USN (1965) Nuclear Power Training, USN (1966) Electronic Technical "B" School, USN (1969) Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Licensed Training (11/73) General Physics Corp. Mitigating Reactor Core Damage Training GE BWR Cold License Certification (2/74) CPS Licensed Operator Training Program SPA Training Program EXPERIENCE Illinois Power Company (1980 to Present) Supervisor - Plant Operations, Clinton Power Station Direct all Operations Department activities including FSAR amendment work, procedure preparation, startup support activities, technical specifications development and design review. 1976 - 1980 Shift Supervisor, Clinton Power Station Coordinated procedure preparation effort of Operations Dept. Carolina Power and Light Company (1973 - 1976) Held the positions of Auxiliary Operator, Control Room Operator, and Operations shift Foreman at the Brunswick Steam and Electric BWR Plant. Experience during this period includes the testing, sta rtup, and commercial operation of the unit. Also assigned to the Training Dept. as instructor for the operator retraining program. 1.5/091584 VAXC/161 A-1

DOUGLAS M. ANTONELLI Page 2 U.S. Navy (1970 - 1973) Senior / Leading Reactor Operator at the S5G Naval Nuclear Propulsion Prototype. Duties during this period include supervising a group of Reactor Operators in the maintenance and operation of reactor control equipment and the training of Reactor Operator students. U.S. Navy (1967 - 1968) Reactor Operator assigned to the USS Sam Houston, a nuclear submarine. Qualified to stand various engineering watchstations and perform maintenance on electronic, reactor control equipment. 4 1.5/091584 VAXC/161 A-2

WILLIAM R. ARMOLD Instrumentation and Control Engineer Torrey Pines Technology Member of Design Review Team PROFESSIONAL SPECIALTY Reactor protection and instrumentation systems: design and analysis, operation, startup, trouble shooting, and equipment qualification. EDUCATION BSEE, University of Texas,1958. Graduate Courses, Electrical and Nuclear Engineering. EXPERIENCE Review of control room design for compliance with NUREG-0700 requirements on South Texas Project, Pilgrim, and Indian Point 2. Assisted in revision of layout of control panel devices and annunciators. Worked on the control room design review for the South Texas Project Nuclear Generating Station. Participated in all phases of th( eview including control room survey, system function and task analysis, and annunciator review. Also, participated in subsequent redesign of control panel layouts for this project. Review of qualification data for safety-related equipment for PWR projects. R esponsible for assuring that the data packages met the general requirements of NUREG-0588 and the specific requirements referenced and that the equipment represented is satisfactory for use in a harsh environment. Review of safety-related pla.nt control and protection system logic and operation to confirm that components important to safety are properly classified for PWR projects at Bechtel. Field investigation and solution of reactor protection system trips and transients during startup of Fort St. Vrain station. Liaison on operational and licensing aspects with utility operations and with NRC. Field engineer in successful construction and start-up of all internal and adjacent external reactor instruments, pressure test and hot flow test support, and control rod drive checkout for Fort St. Vrain station. Completed design and documentation for licensing of reactor plant protection systems. Accomplishments included logic design, cabling, customer liaison and review of specifications and layout for compliance with applicable NRC design criteria. 1.5/091584 VAXC/161 A-3

4 WILLIAfl R. AllIIOLD Page 2 Electrical design of aerospace launch control hardware and systems. 4 Pfl0 FESS 1011AL ASSOCIATICIIS 1 Registered Control Systems Engineer, California, 1975. ' i a i i i i l i ! 1.5/091584 i j VAXC/161 . A-4

RICHARD P. 8ICHEL Supervisor Illinois Power Company Member of Design Review Team EDUCATION BS, Chemical Engineering University of Michigan 1974 BS, Nuclear Engineering, University of Michigan 1974 MS, Chemical Engineering, University of Michigan 1975 TRAINING Senior Operator Licensee at Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant, 2/82 Senior Operator Certification - BWR 6 Training Center 6/84 EXPERIENCE Illinois Power Company (1983 to Present) Supervisor - Results - Responsible for directing the activities of the Technical Department Results Group in the development of plant testing procedures and equipment unitoring programs. Consumers Power Company, Midland Nuclear Power Plant, Midland, Michigan 1935 - 1983 Discipline Supervisor - Responsible for directing the activities of a start-up engineering group for the plant process steam system. Supervisor over procedure development, system checkout, and start-up testing and flushing. 1982 - 1983 Start-up Engineer (Senior Engineer) - Responsible for developing procedures and testing program for process steam system. Also provided direction for system electrical and instrument checkout and system problem resolution. Consumers Power Company Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant, Charlevoix, Michigan 1980 - 1982 Shift Technical Advisor / Shift Engineer - Provided on-shift engineering support to the plant operating staff. Worked on evaluation of NRC documents and INPO documents for applicability to plant. 1.5/091584 VAXC/161 A-5

Richard P. Bichel Page 2 1972 - 1982 QA engineer - Responsible for document review and QA support to the plant staff. Performed .surveillances of plant operations (various l departments) to verify compliance to requairements-Consumers Power Company, Marysville Gas Nuclear Plant, Marysville, Michigan 1975 - 1979 Associate Engineer / General Engineer - Project / Process engineering duties including equipment evaluation, capital projects implementation, plant modification development and installation, and limited trouble shooting of plant systems. PROFESSIGRAL ASSOCIATIONS Registered Professional Engineer - State of Michigan (1979) American Institute of Chemical Engineers American Nuclear Society American ciety of Professional Engineers I ' l l l 1 1 l ! 1.5/091584 VAXC/161 A-6

ERROL P. GAGNON l Muclear Systems Engineer i Torrey Pines Technology Member of Design Review Team PROFESSIONAL SPECIALTY Licensing, safety criteria and technical specification preparation and review. EDUCATION B.S., Engineering, San Diego State University,1965 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AT GA TECHNOLOGIES INC. (Since 1969) Currently Assistant Project Engineer for the DCRDR of Pilgrim Station and Clinton Station. Responsible for SFTA, Assessment and Reporting Phases. Consultant for SFTA for the Kewaunee DCRDR Project. Assisted in the SFTA for the control room design review for the South Texas Project under contract to Bechtel Power Corp. Chairman of the Results Review Committee of the Human Factors Evaluation program for the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Generating Station control room and responsible for coordination of the program tasks. Performed SFTA and human factors evaluation of the SPDS for Palo Verde. Developed safety / licensing positions and criteria for various applications of nuclear power plants. Evaluated nuclear power plant systems and components to identify and prioritize technical, safety and licensing issues. Developed nuclear power plant transient performance specifications. Senior Technical Representative at Fort St. Vrain responsible for technical coordination and guidance on the conduct and evaluation of the startup test program. Manager of the French Licensee Program responsible for the administrative and technical-transfer aspects of the nuclear power plant licensing agreements and contracts. Performed simuh. tion studies and evaluations of nuclear power plant transient perforwance/ safety analyses, control systems, control room configurations and plant startup procedures. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS / HONORS Member American Nuclear Society 1.5/091584 VAXC/161-A-7

l Max J. Hollinden Results Engineer j Illinois Power Company Member of Design Review Team l EDUCATION Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering Technology. Graduated May 1982. University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois. Nuclear Engineering Courses, June 1982 - December 1983. TRAINING Mitigating Reactor Core Damage Training 1983. Human Factors Training 1983. Clinton Power Station Operator Systems Training 1984. Present: GE Station Nuclear Engineer Training. Ongoing: Clinton Power Station Shift Technical Advisor Training. EXPERIENCE Illinois Power Company (1982 to Present) Engineer in Technical - Results Section. Major duties include: investigation and recommendations to resolve human engineering discrepancies identified in Preliminary Design Assessment of Main Control Room, scheduling and coordinating plant staff activities, Diesel Generator Reliability Task Force Representative. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS American Nuclear Society 4 1.5/091584 VAXC/161 A-8

ELINDA ANNE KRAUSE Nuclear Engineer Illinois Power Company Member of the Design Review Team EDUCATION B.S. Nuclear Engineering,1983 Univeristy of Illinois TRAINING GE Probabilistic Risk Assessment, 1983 Mitigating Reactor Core Damage, 1982 Clinton Power Station (CPS) Systems Training, 1984 EXPERIENCE Illinois Power Company (June 1983 to Present) Technical Staff Engineer Responsible for revisions to plant-specific emergency procedures guidelines and emergency operating procedures. Responsible for coordination of plant staff FSAR revisions. June 1982 to August 1982 Nuclear Station Engineering Department (Summer student) - Fuels section June 1981 to August 1981 Technical Staff Engineer Responsible for revisions to plant-specific emergency procedures guidelines and emergency operating procedures. Responsible for coordination of plant staff FSAR revisions. June 1982 to August 1982 Technical Staff (Summer student) Responsible for calculation of evacuation time estimates for CPS Emergency Plan. EXPERIENCE June 1979 to August 1979 , Member of cable tray installation crew (summer student). PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS American Nuclear Society - associate member 1.5/091584 VAXC/161 A-9

p . SAL F. LUMA Project Engineer Sr. Human Factors Specialist Torrey Pines Technology Member of Design Review Team PROFESSIONAL SPECIALTY Design and development, instrumentation and control; human factors EDUCATION B.S., Chemistry, Magna Cum Laude. Niagara University, 1947 Specialty courses: Seismic - Wyle Labs Human Factors - University of Tennessee and Electric Power Research Institute. EXPERIENCE Project Engineer responsible for NUREG-0700 type design review of the South Texas Project, Pilgrim, Indian Point #2, Kewaunee and Clinton control rooms. Prepared program plan for Rancho Seco. Project Engineer responsible for Human Factors review of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station control rooms. Performed Annunciator Prioritization Study for same. Directed design of advanced control room control consoles and unitized cabinets including: human factors engineering, full scale mock-ups, modular construction and seismic qualification. Project Engineer responsible for Probabilistic Risk Assessment Study for Fire Protection Program Assessment of Northeast Utilities Nuclear Plants - Connecticut Yankee, Millstone 1, and Millstone 2. Consultant, review of PG&E equipment qualification documents for NRC approval. Developed formats and organized walkdown teams for PP&L equipment qualification program. Design of a wide variety of systems for advanced HTGR plants. Special studies for application of all technology for modernizing existing nuclear power plants featuring a " Diagnostic Console." Directed development of in-core and ex-core instrumentation to study Fort St. Vrain core fluctuation phenomena. Directed site engineering and craft effort to provide fire protection of critical Fort St. Vrain cabling. Prepared specifications, designed special testing equipment conducted qualification tests, evaluated results and prepared reports for cabling and instrumentation for Fort St. Vrain equipment qualification program. 1.5/091584 VAXC/161 A-10 L

Sal F. Luna l Page 2 1 EXPERIENCE (Continued) Managed a wide variety of instrumentational control and development i groups at Westinghouse Electric Corp. for the nuclear navy and commer- ' cial nuclear programs. Cognizant engineer for Annunciator Systems for same. Directed the design and development of a wide variety of processing plant instrumentation systems for Catalytic Construction Co. PUBLICATIONS Editor of Cassette Control Valve Training Program. Author of chapter on Maintenance - ISA Control Valve Handbook. Author of chapter on Liquid Level Measurement - ISA publication. Also authored a wide variety of technical papers including methodology and results of human factors review of Palo Verde, and advanced control room design. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Registered Professional Engineer (control) California Fellow Grade Member of ISA Past Vice President Long Range Planning Department of ISA Nuclear Power Plant Standards Committee of ISA Member Human Factors Society i 1.5/091584 VAXC/161 A-11

JOHN P. O'8RIEN Illinois Power Company Member of Design Review Team EDUCATION B.S.E.E. Iowa State University M.S.N.E. University of Illinois EXPERIENCE Illinois Power Company (1976 - Present) Supervisor - Instrumentation & Controls Engineering, Nuclear Station Engineering Department Supervision of control and instrumentation design preparation and review. 1968 - 1976 Supervisor of Systems and Programming - Engineering. Data Processing Department Supervision of computer progranning on application of an engineering or scientific nature. 1967 - 1968 Senior Engineering Systems Programmer, Data Processing Department Engaged in computer program development of an engineering or scientific nature. 1964 - 1967 Electrical engineer - Computer Engineering Department Involved in computer program development, installation and processing for the Engineering Department 1 % 0 - 1964 Engineer Engineering Department i Involved in generation and transmission planning related to capacity additions. 1.5/091584 VAXC/161 A-12

RICHARD C. POTTER Nuclear Systems Engineer Torrey Pines Technology Member of Design Review Team > PROFES$10NAL SPECIALTY Power plant dynamic and steady-state systems design and analysis including large scale systems simulation. EDUCATION B.S., Mechanical Engineering University of Minnesota M.S., Mechanical Engineering, University of Southern California EXPERIENCE Presently Assistant Project Engineer for the DCROR of Kewaunee. Responsible for operating experience review, SFTA and documentation. Assisted in the SFTA for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. He recently completed an assignment as Assistant Project Engineer on the control roou design review of the South Texas Project where he performed system functions and task analysis, performed a control room survey, developed program plans and directed other engineers during the review. Mr. Potter was responsible for a fire vulnerability study of three Northeast Utilities nuclear power plants. Study involved the use of probabilistic risk assessment techniques for predicting the shutdown capability of these plants in the event of a fire. He also participated in a probabilistic risk assessment of the Fort St. Vrain plant to determine clean up costs versus probability for on-site contamination due to an interruption of cooling event. On the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station project responsible for: modifying and maintaining computer models for the simulation of

steady-state and transient plant performance review which included data l monitoring and analysis as required to ensure proper plant operations and performing steady-state and dynamic analysis to support the plant startup testing program.

While assigned to the Gas Cooled Fast Reactor Project he performed a conceptual analysis of a natural convection, drum-type and condenser-type shutdown cooling system. 1.5/091584 VAXC/161 A-13 ! l

Richard C. Potter Page 2 EXPERIENCE (Continued) On the HTGR nuclear project he was responsible for the following: modifying and maintaining the steady-state and transient plant perfor-mance programs, the ,)1pe rupture analysis program and the core after-heat analysis program; predicting power plant nominal, shutdown and refueling performance for use by design and analysis groups within the company and for use by the customers and performing parametric and appitcation studies relating to the overall plant design and perfor-mance. Prior to joining Torrey Pines Technology, he directed activities involving propulsion analyses, appiteation studies and computer simula-tion work on large liquid rocket engines. He has also worked as a design engineer responsible for design and detailing of ground support equipment for rockets. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Professional Mechanical Engineer in State of California Member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Member of Pi Tau Sigma i i 1.5/091584 VAXC/161 A-14

JOHN R. PATTEN Illinals Power Company Member of Design Review Team EDUCATION 8.S., U.S. Navel Academy,1959 M.B.A., University of New Haven,1982 TRAINING U.S. Navy Nuclear Power Training, 1963-64 CPS Licensed Operator Training Program

EXPERIENCE Illinois Power Company (1983 - Present)

Director - Nuclear Training Supervise staff of nine instructors in conducting training for plant staff personnel, including licensed and non-licensed operators and monitoring and approving training conducted by other plant staff departments. Supervise preparation of and approve lesson plans and training material. Subject material includes fundamentals, NSSS, B0P and system familiarization U.S. Navy active duty (1959 - 1983) Executive Officer, Naval Submarine Support Facility, New London, CT. Managed maintenance and repairs for two squadrons of nuclear submarines, including radiological controls, processing and shipment of radwaste, photodosimetry, QA and NDT. 1977 - 1980 Director of Officer Training, U.S, Naval Submarine School Supervised training of over 1200 students per year in thirty courses of instruction ranging in length from a few days to six months. 1973 - 1977 Comanding Officer,' USS George C. Marshall (SSBN 654) (Blue) Complete and total responsibility for operation and maintenance of strategic missile submarine including nuclear propulsinn slant. Responsible for training and performance of crew. Completed six lighly successful deterrent patrols and pre-patrol upkeep periods. 1.5/091584 VAXC/161 A-15

John R. Patten Page 2 1964 - 1970 Various assignments on four submarines and one shore command, including one refueling overhaul, initial criticality, startup test program and one training assignment. 1 1963 - 1964 U.S. Navy nuclear power training. 1959 - 1963 Various junior officer assignments on surface ship and diesel-electric l submarine. 1 1.5/091584 VAXC/161 ' A-16

TERRY L. RILEY Illinois Power Company Member of the Design Review Team EDUCATION Univeristy of Illinois. Champaign-Urbana, Bachelor of Science in Astronomy. Graduated May 1977. EXPERIENCE I IllinoisPowerCompany(1981toPresent) Nuclear Satation Engineering Department Staff Specialist Job assignments / responsibilities include:

1. Technical resolustion of NRC Licensing Issues regarding Control Room post-accident radiation doses, Control Room Design Reviews, Plant Emergency Operating Procedures, design and operation of Plant Emergency Response Facilities.

< 2. Detailed review and development of Plant Emergency Operating Procedures.

3. Conceptual design and development of computerized Safety Parameter Display System for the Main Control Room. Evaluation of Plant Physical response to a complete loss of all AC Power event (StationBlackout).

A. Evaluation of Reactor Vessel Water Level Measurement System. ! General Electric Company (March 1980 - December 1981) ! Career development highlights involved the GE Naval Nuclear Operations Program and included:

1. Nuclear Power Engineering School at KAPL (22 weeks) - Operations Egnineer in training. Received training in Naval Nuclear Plant i

technical theory and operations fundamentals.

2. SIC Windsor Site (Prototype) Operations Windsor, Connecticut (6 l

months) - Engineering Officer of the Watch (E00W) in training.

3. SIC Windsor Site Operations (10 months) - Nuclear Plant Engineer

! for Training. Served as a member of shift staff with daily activities and responsibilities that included Naval section l training, personnel counseling, and standing E00W watches. I i 1.5/091584 VAXC/161 A-17

RAYMOND SABEH Human Factors Specialist Torrey Pines Technology Member of Design Review Team PROFESSIONAL SPECIALTY Human Factors Engineering, Operations Research Analysis

                 -EDUCATION PH.D.,              (candidate), Experimental Psychology, Ohio State University M.A.,                Industrial Psychology, Ohio University B.A.,               General Psychology, Davis and Elkins College

EXPERIENCE Responsible for developing and conducting the Operations Personnel Questionnaire, the Interviews and the Control Room Survey to conform with NUREG-0700 Guidelines for the Pilgrim, Kewaunee, Indian Point #2 and Clinton Nuclear Stations.

Responsible for Human Factors' review of corrective enhancements, hierarchical labeling, and demarcation for the South Texas Project. Responsible for special studies and operations personnel validation via operator questionnaire interview evaluations.for the Palo Verde Plants. In addition, . responsible for conducting a Human Factors review of the Palo Verde Safety Parameters Display System in conformance with NUREG-0700 and NUREG-0835. Responsible for preparing and implementing the human factors portion of the NUREG-0700-plan for three NU nuclear operating plants and a fourth NT0L. plant. Served as the human factors team member on the NU Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) program that will be designed, devel-

                      .oped, and implemented for as consortium of some 10 separate utility plants. Prepared Human Factors Engineering Orientation Course material used for instructing nuclear engineers and reactor operators.

ihrtheast Utilities - served as project leader and carried out nuclear operations analysis assignments concerning nuclear regulatory require-ments to conduct human factors study, analysis and review of all activities .affecting man-machine power )lant design and operation. In c this capacity was appointed as subcomittee chairman to technically

_ monitor and direct the Westinghouse Corporation's efforts for develop-ing .a generic system function and task analysis on their PWR plants under contract to Westinghouse Owner's Group.

Consultant - responsible for human factors design of a control center for the storage and retrieval of nuclear waste. 1.5/091584 VAXC/161 A-18

Rgeond Sabeh Page 2 LEXPERIENCE (Continued) Manager / man-machine analysis branch at the Naval Electronics Laboratory

                   - performed human engineering analysis of the Automated Record Data
                 -System for the E4A Aircraft. Also performed a man-machine analysis of the FFGX-CIC space and work place design for SEAMOD, a ship-shore communications effectiveness study. Designed the operator interface for the Minimum Essential Emergency Communications Network Message Processing Mode including the development of computer simulation techniques to assess alternate operator interface designs.

Engineering Psychologist - initiated and coordinated research in development of methods and techniques used in human factors engineering system design and development. Technical leader of a communications effectiveness study effort and shipboard habitability programs. Planned and te'chnically directed the National Military Comand System, the Emergency Action Room and World-Wide airborne command post studies for the Defense Communications Agency.

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS American Nuclear Society Human Factors Society Operations Research Society of American National Academy of Sciences Armed Forces-NTD Comnittee on Vision Southwest Recional s Director, Society for Information Displays PUBLICATIONS Review of the Safety Parameters Display System for Palo Verde, Torrey Pines Technology, GA-C17368, November 1983.

Human Factor Review of the Palo Verde ERFDADS Terminal CRT Display and ' the ESFAS Annunciator Window Box, Torrey Pines Technology, GA-C17154, June 1983. Control Room Operator Personnel Survey for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Torrey Pines Technology, GA-C17155, June 1983. Human Factors Review of the Foxboro 250 Series Indicators and Controllers for Palo Verde, Torrey Pines Technology GA-C17072, May 1983. Human Factors Engineering Orientation, Northeast Utilities, October, 1982. ! 1 1.5/091584 VAXC/161 A-19 1 L

FRANK P. SCALETTA Senior Engineer Torrey Pines Technology Member of Design Review Team j PROFESSIONAL SPECIALTY ' i Safety, reliability, maintainability of nuclear plant mechanical systems and equipment. EDUCATION B.S., Math / Physics, University of Chicago, 1950. EXPERIENCE , Performed control room inventory for Pilgrim and Indian Point #2 DCRDR. Prepared traffic link diagrams for Pilgrim SFTA. Previously involved in updating the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Stations Units 2 & 3 FSAR for Bechtel. Performed systems analysis work in support of TVA's PRA study for Brown's Ferry. Reliability / safety studies of a gas-cooled reactor's Nuclear Steam System and B0P System including FMEA and fault / event trees; data evaluation; low probability events; fire; unplanned releases; design reviews. Performed Ship System R/M/A analyses; FMEA's data evaluations; preposal preparation; liaison on FDLS, LHA, D.G. programs. Provided Mission / Vehicle / Systems / Component Reliability analysis; design reviews; system analyses; proposals on space launch vehicles and boosters. Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion - Prediction of material, component, or system behavior in a nuclear aircraft environment; recommend corrective actions; radiation testing; develop predictive techniques; conduct tradeoff studies. Engineering Test Lab - Qualification testing of B-36 and B-58 Aircraft Hydraulic, pneumatic, mechanical, and optical components; design / build test fixtures; instrument design and installation. Performed Reliability Analyses of Saturn Space Booster Components and Systems.. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Certified Reliability Engineer Member, ANS and ASQC 1.5/091584 VAXC/161 A-20

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

ERIC A. SCHWEITZER Illinois Power Company Member of Design Review Team EDUCATION B.S. Engineering Physics, University of Illinois, 1973 M.S. Nuclear Engineering, University of Illinois,1974 TRAINING CPS Licensed Operators Training Program General Electric Probabilistic Risk Assessment Training General Physics Corp. - Mitigating Reactor Core Damage Training EXPERIENCE Illinois Power Company (1977 - Present) Nuclear Engineer, Supervisor - Nuclear at Clinton Power Station Prepared Techical Dept. administrative and nuclear engineering procedures. Evaluate industry experience for CPS a pplicabil i ty. Special nuclear material custodian. Prepared the nuclear engineering program. Commonwealth Edison Co., Quad Cities Power Station (1974 - 1977) Nuclear Engineer Duties included reactor performance monitoring and calculations to assure conformance with Technical Specifications, fuel performance limits and the optimum power distribution. Implemented control rod

  . patterns consistent with normal operation and xenon transients.

Prepared fuel moves for refueling operations and participated in post refueling testing. 1.5/091584 VAXC/161 A-21

t r 4 E = THERESA A. SGAMMATO y Systems Erqineer . . Member of Design Review Team m i EDUCATION I B.S., Mechanical Engineering, Columbia University, School of e Engineering and Applied Science, New York, NY, 1984 EXPERIENCE $ GA Technologies, San Diego, CA [ Assisted in the DCRDR of Kewaunee Nuclear Plant. Identified instrument / control requirements and characteristics y independent of existing control room instrumentation. Reviewed SFTA = data. g Consolidated Edison, Indian Point Unit 2 Nuclear Power S ta tion, - 2 Buchanan, NY. [ Operated the Water Demineralization Facility. Purified make-up water for primary and secondary cooling systems. Tested and monitored water

chemistry. Maintained and regenerated ion exchange resin beds.

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS g Member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. L I i ~ w A E A s T C ' W W 4 E 1.5/091584 7 VAXC/161 i- A-22 z P

y . PAUL JOHN TELTHORST Results Project Engineer Illinois Power Company Member of Design Review Team EDUCATION University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, Missouri. Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering. Graduated 1976. EXPERIENCE - Illinois Power Company (1982 to Present) Clinton Power Station Technical Staff Results Engineer. Promoted to Results Project Engineer in September 1983. Temporarily assigned as the Emergency Response Capability Implementation Plan (ERCIP) Project Manager from March 1983 to April 1984 by the Vice President (Nuclear) to write the plan (ERCIP) and implement the program to respond to NRC Generic Letter 82-33, Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737. U.S. Navy (1981 - 1982) USS Hammerhead (SSN 663) Weapons Officer in charge of 2 officers and 25 personnel in the Weapons Department. Responsibilities include: supervision of opreation, maintenance, and training of all sonar, fire control, weapons delivery, and security systems; administration and management of personnel; procurement of supplies and repair parts. 1981 Electrical Officer in charge of 13 personnel in Electrical Division. Responsible for operation and performance of preventive and corrective maintenance of all shipboard electrical generation and distribution equipment. Qualified Engineer Officer. (Engineers Exam at Naval Reactors) 1979 - 1981 Main Propulsion Assistant in charge of 16 personnel in Machinery Division. Responsible for maintenance and operation of the ship's main propulsion system and auxiliary equipment. Qualified as Officer of the Deck and in Submarines. I 1.5/091584 VAXC/161 A-23

Paul John Telthorst Page 2 1978 - 1979 Chemistry and Radiological Controls Assistant in charge of 5 personnel. Responsible for nonitoring primary and secondary plant chemistry and monitoring the radiological controls associated with the nuclear power plant. Electrical officer in char 5e of 12 in Electrical Division. Qualified as Engineerinng Officer of the Watch. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS American Nuclear Society ' American Society of Mechanical Engineers 4 e

T a M T E. L. (RETT) CONSIDIME 4' EDUCATION g U. S. Naval Schools - Electronic Technician "A", Treasure Island, CA ~ Submarine School, New London, CN U. S. Naval Huclear Power School, More Island, CA __ Nuclear Power Training Unit, Ida!.o Falls, ID _ SUNIARY 3 Present: Staff Engineering Specialist responsible for control room b evaluations and improvements. 2 Years: Staff Engineering Specialist responsible to the South Texas - Project for development and implementation of the Control Room Design _- Review per NUREG 0700. T 4 Years: Engineering Group Supervisor responsible for directing the [ Control Systems Discipline on the R. S. Nelson Project, a 650 MW coal- + fired power plant. H 1 Year: Control Systems Specialist assigned to the Sayago project in _ Spain responsible for development of criteria for: control room, 2 computer, and the total interaction of the control systems on the Z project. " 1/2 Year: Control Systems Supervisor on a seawater responsible for the coordinated implementation of sixteen interacting pipeline g control rooms. Responsiblities included all analog instrumentation and 1 control logics. C 1 Year: Engineering Group Leader responsible for the control room design and the control systems integration of the Nuclear Steam Supply 5 System contract. _ 2 Years: Proposal and Preliminary Safety Analysis Report technical 6 support for domestic and international efforts. Conceptual design of _ several nuclear unit control rooms. - 1 Year: Startup field liaison during computer modification at Southern -t California Edison's Alametos and Huntington Beach Generating Station. y-8 Years: Reactor Operations, pressurized water reactors. =_. 3

-b

__ s . r 1.5./092084 y VAXC/161 _6 A-25 4

E. L. (Rett) Considine Page two EXPERIENCE Twenty years experience in engineering design and operation of nuclear and fossil fueled power plants. Currently on the Chief Control System Engineer's Staff working in the Control Room Evaluation and Improvement Presently working on; Boston Edison - Pilgrim Station; Illinois area. Power - Clinton Station; and Houston Lighting and Power - South Texas Project. Developed and implemented techniques for reducing the number of meters in the control room, control panel demarcation, hierarchical labeling and meter scales that are acceptable the the NRC. Engineering Group Supervisor on the R. S. Nelson Project responsible for directing the Control Systems Discipline. Supervised the group's work to a;sure conformance with applicable codes and good engineering practice; and assured that engineering, design, drafting anc procurement proceeded on schedule. Made major decisons relating to the group's design and reported all major developments. Control Systems Specialist assigned to the Sayago Project in Bilbao, Spain working as a member of the Utilities organization. Responsible for the criteria development for the control room, control room system interface, computer, and annunciators. In the past several years has contributed to several Bechtel Power Corporation control room studies for the Thermal oower Organization and specific projects. Designed input to the following projects' control room design: o San Onofre Units 2 & 3, California, USA o Lemoniz, Bilbao, Spain o ASCO, Madrid, Spain o A. W. Vogtle, Georgia, USA o R. S. Nelson, Unit 6 Coal-Fueled, Louisiana, USA o Fayette Power Project, 2 Unit Coal-Fired, Texas, USA o Sayago, Bilbao, Spain o W. A. Parish, 2 Unit Coal-Fired, Texas, USA o Vandellos Nuclear Center, Unit 2, Madrid, Spain o South Texas Project, Bay City, Texas, USA Previously, qualified as a Senior Reactor Operator, and Chief Reactor Technician on Naval Reactors. As Chief Reactor technician supervised reactor operators and technicians. Responsible for supervising maintenance of the reactor control, protection systems and all instrumentation. Also served as Senior Reactor Control Instructor and was a member of the reactor operator qualification board. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Member, American Nuclear Society, South Texas Section Member, Instrument Society of America Member, Human Factor Society 1.5./092084 VAXC/161 A-26

f 1 r l [ f APPENDIX B Sample Procedure f I l-e l

1 = r I*LIN0lS

    .        POWER COMPANY                               NO. DCRDR 4.6-1          REV. O s

CLINTON POWER STATION DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW TITLE E0P & DCRDR VALIDATION DATE 8/27/84 PAGE 1 of 7 r REVIEWED BY APPROVED BY Project Engineer /Date Program Manager /Date m 1.0 PURPOSE w.' ~

                                                                                                  ~^ g$x <..          ,

3 This procedure defines the method and the requirements for performing the ((. }, Validation phase of the Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) and the : Detailed Control Rcom Design Review (DCRDR). ~/si f,z%. r,

                                                                                                                   ~. ?

k 2.0 APPLICABILITY k;jb;j; :. 4 Sf :,. r This procedure applies to all Design Review Team members, Torrey Pines 1 *T/.i/ i Technology employees and Illinois Power Company employees participating in g $ ~!y

the validation phase of the DCRDR. R . .' d: sw

=

f. :,, , ?

3.0 REFERENCES

S r JJ ' W .L:li 3.1 Clinton Power Station Detailed Control Room Design Review - Program 1;a.1;7; Plan Report Dated September 1984 { r g!Q.* s t.. . . , 3.2 Torrey Pines Technology proposal number GACP 41-212 [Jp;gy i-3.3 Guidelines for Control Room Design Reviews, NUREG-0700 Dated t'.4i.N.. - t September 1981. ( Y. M.i;j.

4.0 DISTRIBUTION

                                                                                                   . - , - s.y .4 Jg* g-y'           y4 p         DCRDR Procedure Distribution                                                                                      "

5.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 5.1 The DCRDR Program Manager will be responsible for approval of this t procedure and changes thereto. F g 5.2 The DCRDR Project Engineer will be responsible for the review and

implementation of this procedure.

? m 1.5/091984 VAXC #98

B-1

  .l,k $'Nbll.'.N??:h!.$ W ki$ h h :Yb ? 4 Nh W .. N 0 . h W N 0 W W W l                                                                                                      ,

R .. L

a 44 s V.6 ),, y? '.

M ILLIN0IS POWER COMPANY NO. DCRDR 4.6-1, REY. 0 c?r

                                                                                                                                    ; .?i&M z.

CLINTON POWER STATION TITLE E0P & DCRDR VALIDATION

                                                                                                                                 ..[
          ;,                      DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW              DATE          8/27/84       PAGE 2 of 7       Mdk
                                                                                                                                 .; e ;

d.f

y 6.0 REQUIREMENTS F. ..Q., ,_ ,

s; s .;, v% 6.1 Objective /.jf .4 3 m .. J . . (- The objective of the validation task is to determine if the functions "M C '

   - i                                           allocated to the control room operating crew can be accomplished                : f.j. <

l6 effectively within the control room physical and organizational Q. = if.j

.5.} design. The validation will determine if adequate manual controls, Jeff;

  .4                                             automatic controls, monitoring systems and trained operators are                <?..'

f available to ensure safe plant operation within acceptable operating N s' n ey boundaries. 371/(( nr fy The validation process will provide an opportunity to identify any 3;2 ne; Human Engineering Observations (HE0s) that were not discovered in k. .p%p ;- g the other phases of the DCRDR. Also, during the validation, ' 7; c ' E c

  'J'                                            pertinant HE0s identified in the other phases of the DCRDR will be                    V. - i
  ;S                                             evaluated with regards to potential problems relating to real-time              h:j.52 }.
              .                                  control room operation.                                                         t Ma ;

Q fi.55.s

  , .g                                     6.2 Approach                                                                            .;]. ;

M; .f c x y;; The validation will be performed by having control room personnel OSi. [S4 walk and talk through selected event sequences studied in the System .c (:j:1 Q Function and Task Analysis (SFTA). The walk and talk throughs will Vi : : 5 be performed in the control room simulator using real-time simulation i,2' k 3. p of the selected event sequences. The participating operators will fy;g

                                                                                                                                 ' lS ~y, 44                                                perform their normal control room duties for the defined events.

f-C They will also describe their actions including name of the control / displays used, the expected value or response and what action to take

                                                                                                                                  ~i [,

3' jc., if expected response does not occur. ,l :

                                                                                                                                  .i;.7 (; .    .

fE A video and audio tape recording will be made of the walk and talk .l ;[ throughs for later analysis. A debriefing session will be held with the operators where the video tape is played back and any additional

                                                                                                                                  .'k.bT   ~{7.'

'5 . informaticn or questions will be discussed. (:$;:d4

    ..y n - ;.

C .l 6.3 Validation Tasks <3;th,.1

   .: t' H

u.- ; 2, fS* .!.# The overall Control Room Validation effort includes the following

     ,[
  ., e activities:                                                                       .Q     ;:. r .,

f:-

   'T                                             a)      Review of the SFTA results to select the event sequences to be            L:^

[gh.S

  '.$                                                    followed in the walk and talk through.                                                 1gg
                                                                                                                                     .wu , y y :(

4 y ~ ; :.:

  . . .C
                                                                                                                                     .. M     + =6

.W,'

4 WU p.): :

                  ^
                                                                                                                                            ,.F. !.

;n.

                  -                                                                                                                    ;sh.'p. ,.
  ' .                                                                                                                                  ~
       . :i ,                        1.5/091984                                                                                      [.gMl              :.

. :.. VAXC #98 5J>b D4N

'f- B-2 '.. + O .. 1.x ; ~ _=y

   ..                                                                                                                             ,(a.j e , "f         .

_; l, -

                                               .   .-p,-
                                                   .        . . . _. ;.,,_.    ;.         .. . ..._      . . , _.  .,.4.   . . .     , l4 :

fLLIN0!S POWER COMPANV NO. DCRDR 4.6-1, REV. O CLINTON POWER STATION TITLE E0P & DCRDR VALIDATION DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW DATE 8/27/84 PAGE 3 of 7 b) Review of HE0s from the Control Room Survey, the SFTA and the Operating Experience Review to identify particular step sequences for close monitoring during the walk and talk through. c) Prior to the Real Time Simulation Exercises, a briefing of the operators on the objectives of the exercises and how they will be performed. d) Performing the Real Time Simulation Exercises of the selected event sequences. e) Video (including audio) taping of the exercises, f) A de-briefing of the results including a review of the video tape. g) Preparation of HE0s resulting from the Real Time Simulation Exercises. h) Documentation of the overall validation effort including HE0s as a report section to be included as part of the final SFTA report. 6.4 Validation Methodology The following describes the approach that will be used in performing the validation tasks listed in Section 6.3. 6.4.1 Selection of Event Sequence As part of the SFTA phase of the DCRDR a review was performed to establish that the selected operational events (SOEs) analyzed in the SFTA were comprehensive events involving all the systems and safety functions. The information used in performing the review was obtained from the Emergency Procedure Guidelines (EPGs). To datermine the event sequences to walk through for the validation, the information used in the selection of the SOEs will be reviewed. Several SOEs will be selected for the exercises. The events will be selected to provide a validation of all of the major plant systems and all the control room safety functions identified in the EPGs. I 1.5/091984 VAXC #98 B-3

ILLIN0IS POWER COMPANY NO. DCRDR 4.6-1, REV. O CLINTON POWER STATION TITLE E0P & DCRDR VALIDATION DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW DATE 8/27/84 PAGE 4 of 7 6.4.2 HE0 Review Prior to performing the exercises, a checklist will be prepared which will identify particular step sequences, tasks or devices on the control panels that are considered potential areas of concern. The results and the HE0s from the other phases of the DCRDR (the SFTA, the Survey and the Operating Experience Review) will be reviewed to identify these potential problem areas. In identifying these areas, emphasis will be placed on the controls / displays used in the evaluation of plant status and the diagnosis of the emergency condition. 6.4.3 Operator Briefing Prior to performing the exercises, a introductory briefing session will be held with the plant operators and the operator of the control room simulator. Following is the contents for this briefing: a) A brief introduction describing the DCRDR effort and the SFTA phase of this effort. s b) An introduction to the validation effort presenting the purpose and specific objectives of the exercises. c) A discussion on the method for performing the walk and talk through exercises. A review of the required operator responses discussed in Section 6.4.4 and discussion of significant HE0s or problem areas. A review to determine if a " dry run" walk-through is necessary prior to the real-time walk-through. d) A discussion on the best method for recording the operator actions on video tape. 6.4.4 Walk and Talk through Exercises The participating control room operators will perform a walk and talk through of each of the select 2d event sequences. These exercises will be performed in reai-time using the Clinton Power Station control room simulator. The duties or actions that will be performed by the operators will be those described in the latest EPG based Emergency Operating Procedures (E0Ps). At least one control room reviewer will be present and the entire walk-through will be recorded on video / audio tape as described in Section 6.4.5. s 1.5/091984 VAXC #98 B-4

ILLIN0IS POWER COMPANV NO. DCRDR 6.6-1, REV. O CLINTON POWER STATION TITLE E0P & DCRDR VALIDATION - DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW DATE 8/27/84 PAGE 5 of 7 The operators will be instructed to describe the actions they are performing and the reason for these actions as follows: .- a) For an instrument or display, the name of the instrument or parameter that is being monitored and the expected value, status or trend (e.g. reading a reactor coolant temperature value of 4500F). b) For a control device, the name of the control and the expected action or setting for the control, c) As time permits, the operator (s) will indicate what actions are performed to verify a reading or system status, i.e. whenever the annunciator panel can be used to verify status or a second display can be observed to , verify a reading, d) As time permits, the operator will describe alternate - , actions if the expected response or. status does not occur (e.g. verifying that one RHR pump is operating via a red status light or switch pump on, if status light were green). Since the walk-through will be performed in real-time, items (c) and (d) above may be difficult to perform. In most cases, these items can be addressed during the video replay described in Section 6.4.6. The control room reviewer may ask questions during the exercises, however, these should not interfere with the A real-time simulation of the event. Many of these questions can be answered in the de-briefing session or during the " dry run." 6.4.5 Video Recording The exercises will be recorded on audio / video tape to permit post exercise analysis. A single camera with zooming capability will be used to record the operator actions. The 1.5/091984 VAXC #98 B-5

ILLIN0IS POWER COMPANY NO. DCRDR 4.6-1, REV. O ;p.,r .c yc.; . CLINTON POWER STATION TITLE E0P & DCRDR VALIDATION di

                                                                                                  ),;.

DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW DATE 8/27/84 PAGE 6 of 7 .'%-.

                                                                                                  .;y db
                                                                                                  ? .' r camera should have provisions for a digital time display       Jph e superimposed on the video image. The camera will be placed in  S. b.;

an area in the control room that provides the best view of the s.?: . panels and equipment involved in each event. If possible, the MS camera support shuld be mounted on wheels to allow some move- 1. ment of the camera if required to improve coverage of the hv,.l4 -y operator actions. . ( -y The video recording of each event will begin with an N identification or title chart that includes the name of the M-event, participants, time and place of recording. Audio W 4.

           .                       pickups will be placed so that all pertinent alarms, sounds    f.fG and operator communication will be audible on playback on the  - J.: J .L audio recording.      An experienced operator or training      1. ti ,

personnel will act as narrator for each event. The narrator *^ y '. will provide by audio input an overview of the event and the T C" " operator actions while being careful not to interfere with the recording of the operator communications. % jgs [j.' The video cassettes will be labeled with the name of the review, the event name and the date and time of recording. hE f.g . j . , ;]~... 6.4.6 Video Debriefing ., P Qlm As a follow-up to the exercise, a debriefing session will be Q held with the participating operators. The video recordings will be played back and each event will be discussed. The related human engineering criteria will be reviewed and discussed prior to replaying the video tapes. The purpose of the debriefing is to provide an oppo-tunity for the review team to analyze the operator actions and to ask questions about these actions without being constrained by the real-time operation of the simulator. The video can be stopped during discussions and critical scenes can be replayed if closer review is required. The debriefing also provides an opportunity for an objective review by the operators of their movement and actions while performing the control room functions. A 9 1.5/091984 VAXC #98 B-6

1 ILLIN0IS POWER COMPANY NO. DCRDR 4.6-1, REV. O CLINTON POWER STATION TITLE E0P & DCRDR VALIDATION DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW DATE 8/27/84 PAGE 7 of 7 , 6.4.7 HE0 Preparation Any violations of the pertinent human engineering guidelines identified during the validation will be recorded as HE0s using form DCRDR-HE0-2 according to procedure DCRDR 5.3-1. 6.4.8 Documentation The validation effort shall be documented as part of the SFTA report. The results from all the tasks listed in Section 6.3 will be presented and discussed. 7.0 EFFECTIVE DATE This procedure becomes effective immediately upon approval . 1.5/091984 VAXC #98 B-7

l i l l l APPENDIX C Samples from Questionnaire . c .. O l i

F ) TABLE OF CONTENTS Pace

1.0 BACKGROUND

.......................                                                                1-1 1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 1.2 Objective                                 .....................                             1-3 1.3 Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4 1

2-1 2.0 CPERATOR QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION ............. A. Workspace & Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 B. Connunications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14 C. Annunciator Warning Systers . . . . . . . - . . . 2-21

0. Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28 E. Visual Displays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33 F. Labels and Location Aids . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-38 G. F.otsus Con:puters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-43 H. Panel 1.ayout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-51 I. Control / Display Integration . . . . . . . . . . . 2-56 f

J. Procedures, Manning and Training . . . . . . . . . 2-59 K. Control Room Equipment and Storage . . . . . . . . 2-67 3.0 SHIFT SUPERVISOR QUESTICNNAIRE SECTION ......... 3-1 4.0 SHIFT TECHNICAL ADVISCR QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION . . . . . . 4-1 5.0 MANAGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION ............ 5-1 6.0 ENGINEER / TECHNICIAN QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION . . . . . . . . 5-1 i C1

b ( A. iiORK $ PACE AND ENVIROMENT , m

1. Do you have any difficulty locating systems, subsystems, or functional . ,

groupings of panel equipment? __ ( ) No ( ) Yes (explain)

2. Do you have any difficulty locating individual devices within a system, _

subsystem, or functional grouping? ( ) No ()Yes(explain) p

3. Do you have any difficulty reading display devices?

( ) No ( ) Yes (explain) 4 Do you have any difficulty operating controls? ( ) No ( ) Yes (explain) _ t O m C2

s b CONT 1t0L ROOM EQUIPfENT AND STORMiE (cont.)

5. Are su able to perform your control rocm functions while dressed in emergency protective equipment?

( ) Yes ( ) No (explain) _'__

6. Is there adequate document and storage space availablef

( ) Yes ( ) No (explain)

7. Is there adequate storage space within the control room for spare parts, expendables, etc.? ,

( ) Yes ( ) No (explain)

8. Is the spare parts and expendables location readily accessible to control room personnel? --

( ) Yes ( ) No (explain) k C3

APPENDIX D Sample Filing Index f

CLINTON POWER STATION - DCRDR FILING INDEX ISSUE # ISSUE DATE Rev. 0 8/27/84 l 2 3/8/30/84 vaxo/#97 D-1

FILING SYSTEM INDEX 1.0 GENERAL 1.1 Communications for Initiating DCRDR Program 1.1.1 Correspondence 1.1.2 Meeting or Conference Minutes 1.1 3 Telecons 1.2 Basic Vendor Bid Package and Related Correspondence 13 Vendor Proposals and Related Correspondence 1.4 Bid Evaluations and Related Correspondence 15 Signed contract 1.5.1 Contract Revision No. 1 and Related Correspondence 1 5.2 Contract Revision No. 2 and Related Correspondence 153 1.5.4 1.5.5 1.5.6 1.6 Contract Invoices 1.7 Program Plan 1.7.1 Correspondence 172 Meeting or Conference Minutes 1.7 3 Telecons 1 7.4 Prograu Plan (Each Major Draft with Review Comments) and Approved Revisions 1.8 Schedules 1.8.1 Contract Schedule 1.8.2 Working Schedule 19 Progress Reports 191 Telecons 192 Monthly Progress Letters 1.10 Program Communications 1.10.1 Correspondence 1.10.2 Conference Notes 1.10 3 Telecons 1.11 Internal Correspondence . ,

                                                                                   <       8:,

2 3/8/30/84 i 'd vaxc/#97 $ ?/ D-2 L~4"

5. J

                                                                                     ,    St ..
                                                                                 . - r

2.0 ADMINISTRATION -

2.1 Procedures and Instructions ) 2.2 List of Library Material 23 Master File Index (Latest Revision) 2.4 Policies 2.5 Data Management System 2 5.1 Subject - Codes l l l 2 3/8/30/84 vaxc/#97 D-3

30 MOSAIC / MOCKUP 31 Communications 3 1.1 Correspondence 3 1.2 Meeting Minutes 3.1 3 Telecons 32 Purchase Order 3 2.1 RFP 3 2.2 Response to RFP 3.2 3 Purchase Order and Change Notices 33 Installation and Shipping 3.4 Design Changes or Modifications 2 3/8/30/84 vaxo/#97 D-4

4.0 REVIEW 4.1 Operating Experience Review 4.1.1 Correspondence 4.1.2 Team Meetings and Conference Minutes 4.1 3 Telecons 4.1.4 Guidelines and Procedures 4.t.5 Forms (Questionnaire and Interview Drafts with Review Comments) 4.1.6 Raw Data for Plant Experience Document Reviews, Questionnaire Responses and Interview Reponses 4.1 7 Evaluations, Summaries or Reports (Each Major Draft with Review Comments) 4.1.8 HEOs 4.1.9 Graphic Arts Material 4.2 System Function and Task Analysis (Including Verification and Validation) 4.2.1 Correspondence 4.2.2 Team Meeting and Conference Minutes 4.2 3 Telecons 4.2.4 Guidelines and Procedures 4.2.5 Blank Forms 4.2.6 Work Sheets and Completed Forms 4.2.7 Verification Results (Worksheets and Completed Forms) 4.2.8 Validation Results (Worksheets and Completed Forms) 4.2.8.1 Video Tapes 4.2 9 Evaluations, Summaries or Reports (Each Major Draft with Review Comments) 4.2.10 HEOs 4.2.11 Graphic Arts Material 4.3 Control Room Inventory 431 Correspondence 4.3 2 Team Meetings and Conference Minutes 433 Telecons 434 Guidelines and Procedures 2 3/8/30/84 vaxc/#97 D-5

4.3 5 Forms 4.3.6 Completed Forms 437 Control Room Inventory Results and Printouts 4.3.8 Evaluations, Summaries or Reports (Each Major Draft with Review Comments) 4.3 9 Graphic Arts Material 4.4 Control Room Survey 4.4.1 Correspondence 4.4.2 Team Meeting and Conference Minutes 4.4.3 Telecons 4.4.4 Criteria Report (Each Major Draft with Review Comments) 4.4.5 Checklist Forms 4.4.6 Checklist (each Major Draft with Review Comments) 4.4.7 Completed Checklist Work Sheets (Raw, Data with Support Sketches, Photos etc.) 4.4.7.1 Work Space 4.4.7.2 Communications 4.4.7 3 Annunciator 4.4.7.4 Controls 4.4.7.5 Visual Displays 4.4.7.6 Labels and Location Aids 4.4.7.7 Process Computer 4.4.7.8 Panel Layout 4.4.7 9 Control-Display Integration 4.4 7 10 Control Room Equipment and Storage 4.4.8 Evaluations, Summaries and Reports (Each Major Draft with Review Comments) 4.4.9 CRS - HEOs 4.4.10 Graphic Arts Material 2 3/8/30/84 vaxo/#97 D-6

5.0 HE0 ASSESSMENT AND-HED IMPROVEMENT e 5.1. Assessments and Improvement Reviews 5.1.1 Correspondence 5.1.2 Assessment Team Meetings Minutes 5.1 3 Telecons 5.1.4 Guidelines and Procedures 5.1.5 Forms 5.1.6 Completed Forms 5.i.7 pesultsandComputerCompilations(HEOs/HEDs) 5.1.8 Submittals to Management and Replys 5.1.9 Evaluations, Summaries or Reports (Each Major Draft with Review Comments) 5.1.10 Graphic Arts Materials 5.2 Improvements Implementation (Human Factors Related) 5.2.1 Correspondence 5.2.2 Meeting Minutes 5.2 3 Telecons 5.2.4 Guidelines and Procedures 5.2.5 Work Effort Results 5.2.6 Evaluations, Summaries or Reports (Each Major Draft with Review Comments) 5.2.7 Graphic Arts Material i r 2 3/8/30/84 vaxc/#97 D-7

w-6.0 NRC MEETINGS AND AUDITS l 0 2 3/8/30/84 vaxc/#97 D-8

7.0 SPECIAL STUDIES l l 3 t 2 3/8/30/84 vaxc/#97 D-9

8.0 DOCUMENTATION 1 8.1 Final Report 8.1.1 Correspondence 8.1.2 Meeting Minutes ) 8.1.3 Telecons s 8.1.4 Guidelines and Procedures 8.1 5 Reports (Each Major Draft with Review Comments) 8.1.6 Graphic Arts Material 9 I b l l l l \ 2 3/8/30/84 l vaxc/#97 D-10 L I}}

ML20098G329: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 08:39, 12 May 2020

Contents

Text

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

3.0 REFERENCES

1.0 BACKGROUND

Navigation menu

ML20098G329: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 08:39, 12 May 2020

Text

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

3.0 REFERENCES

1.0 BACKGROUND

Navigation menu

Search