ML20072N434: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| number = ML20072N434 | | number = ML20072N434 | ||
| issue date = 07/12/1983 | | issue date = 07/12/1983 | ||
| title = Procedure WMM-025 Control Room Design Review Program Plan for | | title = Procedure WMM-025 Control Room Design Review Program Plan for WPPSS Nuclear Project 3 | ||
| author name = | | author name = | ||
| author affiliation = WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM | | author affiliation = WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM | ||
Latest revision as of 20:37, 30 May 2023
| ML20072N434 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Satsop |
| Issue date: | 07/12/1983 |
| From: | WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072N404 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0700, RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-0801, RTR-NUREG-700, RTR-NUREG-737, RTR-NUREG-801 GL-82-33, WMM-025, WMM-25, NUDOCS 8307150318 | |
| Download: ML20072N434 (117) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ . __ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ . .
; WMM-025 June 1983 CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW
= PROGRAM PLAN for Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Project #3 0 B307150318 830712 PDR ADOCK 05000508 F PDR
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page l
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 l 2.0 OVERVIEW 2 2.1 Purpose 2 2.2 Objectives 2 2.3 Description of CRDR Activities 2 2.3.1 Planning Phase 3 2.3.2 Review Phase 3 2.3.3 Assessment and Implementation Phase 3 2.3.4 Verification and Validation Phase 4 2.3.5 Reporting Phase 4 3.0 STAFFING AND QUALIFICATIONS OF REVIEW TEAM 5 3.1 Review Team Management 5 1 3.2 Review Team Composition 5 3.2.1 Review Team Structure 5 4 3.2.2 Review Team Leaders 6 3.2.3 Human Factor Specialists 6 3.2.4 Instrumentation and Control Engineers 7 3.2.5 Reactor Operations , 7 3.2.6 Support Personnel 7 3.2.7 Summary of Review Team Experience 7 3.3 Review Team Activitites 8 3.4 Review Team Orientation 8 4.0 DOCUMENTATION AND DOCUMENT CONTROL 10 4.1 Reference Documentation 10 4.2 Review Documentation 10 4.3 Document Control 11 O/
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page 5.0 REVIEW PHASE 12 5.1 Control Room Inventory 12 5.2 Control Room Survey 13 5.2.1 Operating Personnel Survey 14 5.3 Function and Task Analysis 15 5.4 Verification of Task Performance Capability 16 5.4.1 Verification of Availability 17 5.4.2 Verification of Human Engineering Suitability 17 6.0 ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION 18 6.1 Enhancements 18 6.2 Assessment of Human Engineering 19 Discrepancies 6.3 Categorization 20 6.4 Corrective Action Development 22 6.5 Corrective Action Implementation 22 6.6 Implementation Schedule 22 7.0 VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION 24 7.1 Verification of Design Improvements 24 7.2 Validation of Control Room Functions 24 8.0 REPORT PHASE 25 9.0 CRDR SCHEDULE 26 FIGURES AND TABLES APPENDICES Appendix A - Data Collection Forms Appendix B - Resumes Appendix C - Acronyms Appendix 0 - References
4
1.0 INTRODUCTION
As implemented by NRC in the December 17, 1982, 82-33 letter and requir-ed by Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Re-quirements." Washington Public Power Supply System, Nuclear Project Num-ber 3, will undergo a Detailed Control Room Design Review, following the guidance of NUREG-700 " Guidelines for Control Room Design Reviews" and NUREG-0801 " Evaluation Criteria for Detailed Control Room Design Review." The following is the Program Plan for conducting such a review. l
\
1 1 i
~ _ _ . _ . - . - - - . . . _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ , _ , , _ . _ . . _ . _ - . _ . . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ - - _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . - - .
l 2.0 OVERVIEW pq The following is a description of the purpose, objectives, and activ-D ities of the Control Room Design Review (CRDR). 2.1 Purpose The purpose of the control room design review, as defined in the guidance in NUREG-0700 " Guidelines for Control Room Design Re-views," is to: l
- 1. Review and evaluate the control room workspace, instrumenta- l tion, controls, and other equipment from a human factors engineering viewpoint taking into account both system demands and operator capabilities;
- 2. To identify, assess, and implement control room design modi-fications to correct ir. adequate or unsuitable items.
2.2 Objectives The objectives for the control room design review are: s Improve the ability of control room operators to prevent i accidents and to cope with accidents if they occur by improv-ing information provided to them, e Identify any modifications of the control room configuration that would contribute to a significant reduction of risk and to enhance safety of operation. 2.3 Descr'iption of CRDR Activities To achieve the objectives of the CRDR, a number of activities will be completed by a multidisciplinary review team. A flow chart of these activities is presented in Figure 1-1. The CRDR has been split into five nominal phases: o Planning l e Review e Assessment and Implementation e Verification and Validation e Reporting 1 j
A brief synopsis of these activities follows: 2.3.1 Planning Phase The planning phase for the CRDR commenced with a meeting of the Review Team to develop this program plan. The objectives of the control room design review were re-viewed, and resources, schedule, and methodolgy were agreed upon. The planqing phase of the CRDR progam is represented in this program plan report. 2.3.2 Review Phase The review phase will constitute the investigative, data-gathering portion of the CRDR. During this phase, a con-trol room survey will compare the characteristics of the existing control room with appropriate human engineering design guidelines. Also, interviews with control room operators will be conducted to obtain additional information. The results of a control room inventory will be compared with the display and control requirements resulting from the system function and task analysis to identify missing displays or controls. 2.3.3 Assessment and Implementation Phase During the assessment and implemention phase, all discrep-ancies identified will be analyzed, and the potential im-pact of each discrepancy on safe plant operation will be determined. Discrepancies will be classified according to their safety consequence. f a
- _ . = . _ . . - - _ _ - - - . . .- .. . . . - -.
Significant Human Engineering Discrepancies (HEDs) will be
'~
corrected by enhancement, design modifications (where needed), procedure and training improvements, and con-sideration of the capabilities of the SPDS (EDS at WNP-3). The results of the CRDR will be integrated and correlated with other 82-33 programs such as SPDS, operator training, new instrumentation (Reg. Guide 1.97, Rev. 2), and emer-gency operating procedures. 2.3.4 Verification and Validation Phase During the verification and validation process, it will be verified that the documented discrepancies have been cor-rected without creating other safety problems and that the functions allocated to the control room operators can be effectively accomplished. 2.3.5 Reporting Phase ,( At the conclusion of the CRDR, a summary report will be submitted to the NRC. It will include: e Significant changes made to the program plan, if any e HEDs which were identified as requiring correction. e HEDs identified with safety significance that will not be corrected or only partially corrected, and justi-fication for doi.ng so e Proposed schedule for correcting HEDs ~
l l 1 3.0 STAFFING AND QUALIFICATIONS OF REVIEW TEAM 3.1 Review Team Management The conduct of the CRDR will be the responsibility of the Supply System's Review Team Manager. The Review Team Manager will pro-vide management oversight to ensure the integration of the pro-ject objectives and to fulfill the intent of the review. The CRDR team will require interaction with other organizations within WNP-3. The Review Team Manager will have the authority to assure freedom of the CRDR team operation. Areas which will be included are: o Access to information (records, documents, plans, procedures, drawings,etc.). e Access to all required facilities. e Access to any personnel with useful or necessary information. e Access to support services (word processing, computers, photography,etc.). e Freedom to document dissenting opinions. 3.2 Review Team Composition 3.2.1 Review Team Structure The review team is a multidisciplined team of individuals with the wide range of skills necessary to perform the design review. The review team, consisting of members from the Supply System, Ebasco Services, and Lund Consult-ing, will include the following personnei: # i l - I l l . _ . _ _ . . . . . . . _ , . __
f e Review Team Leaders in each of the major disciplines:
/ human factors, engineering, and operations e Human Factors Specialists e Engineers, including:
e Instrumentation and control engineers e Nuclear systems engineers e Systems analysts e Reactor operators and operations specialists During the course of the review, additional specialists required for specific tasks will be made available to the review team as needed. Figure 3-1 indicates current specific CRDR team and sup-port personnel assignments. 3.2.2 Review Team Leaders Each of the Review Team Leaders reports to the Review Team Manager and is responsible for the day-to-day conduct of Review Team activities. These individuals will provide a Q cohesive force for the various disciplines involved in this review. Appropriate management personnel in the Sup-ply System will be kept informed of review problems and progress by Team Leaders and by summaries in the Ebasco Monthly Progress Report. l 3.2.3 , Human Factors Specialists l The human factors engineers and specialists will partici-pate in each portion of the CRDR program, as indicated on Table 3-2, to ensure that the CRDR is conducted from the proper human factors perspective. O a#
s 3.2.4 Instrumentation and Control Engineers A number of different engineering specialists will be used
~
during the course of the CRDR. The primary engineering discipline will be instrumentation and control engineers supplied jointly by EBASCO and the Supply System. Other engineering disciplines, which include nuclear system engineers and systems analysts, will perform a de-sign engineering function and assist in the identification rving a rye t e er fac affec the design decisions at WNP-3. s 3.2.5 Reactor Operations The Supply System will provide experienced operators, pro-cedure specialists, trainers, and shift managers to the control room review effort. There will be both Reactor , Operators and Shift Managers on the review team to ident-ify operator tasks and operational constraints for manip-ulations of WNP-3's instruments and controls. 3.2.6 Support Personnel In order to provide the required multidisciplinary talents i to the CRDR review team, additional personnel resources i have been commited to support the CRDR. These resources include lighting and acoustics personnel from Ebasco Ser-vices; and photographic specialists from the Supply 4 System. Also, clerical support will be provided as required. i 3.2.7 Sumary of Review Team Experience . Table 3-1 shows the amount of experience in each disci-i pline by the respective review team members. The individ-ual team members qualifications are found in Appendix B - Resumes. uO i n .- - e.,- , n e-, . , - - ., -, -,.,.,,,v- ..--.,,,,,,-,-.n--,,,.,,w--,--.,,,,.n,,,.---,,---~,n,,,. -
-,._-,.,w,- -
--,.--.e., , ,-,-e....,, e.-
3.3 Review Team Activities -
; The Review Team under the leadership of the Review Team Manager s_/ and the Review Team Leaders will perform activities including:
e Establishment of the overall plan and schedule for the con-trol room review and integration of all action items. e Development of the methodologies for the review and assess-ment of discrepancies. Table 3-2 illustrates major CRDR processes and discipline emphasis. The review team will develop all reports relating to the control room review and ensure that the appropriate reports are submitted to the Supply System Management for review and approval. 3.4 Review Team Orientation Orientation meetings of the CRDR Review Team took place the week of January 10, 1983 and May 9, 1983. The orientation was accom-plished by conducting seminars on the following subjects: 10 Human Factors: e Human Factors engineering objectives and methodologies, e The contents of NUREG-0700 and NUREG-0801 and e The CRDR methodologies to be used. Engineering: e Description of design conventions used in the develop-ment of the control room complex from design criteria through construction ; Operations: s Discussion of control room staffing and training practices e Shift organization and chain of command l l l S0.) l t l . _ , _ _ - _ _ .
4
, e Use of operating and' emergency procedures
' e Plant operating organization e Communications
- Program Plan
o Presentation and discussions on the WNP-3 draft CRDR program plan. I e The purpose and application of the forms used by the team during the various CRDR activities, i t { } a J O _g _- - - , ,-- , , . . - . - - . -_,,--_.,_,n,,aw,w++~ms,.nn,-,,,,--,
,-,mn,-a,, , - ,e-,-_ .,,,w,w,,,,-m-,,n,,,..,_w
4 4.0 DOCUMENTATION AND DOCUMENT CONTROL ( U 4.1 Reference Documentation The following documents have been identified as reference material to be used during the review project. As the review pro- gresses, it is anticipated that additional material and references will be identified. e Operating System Descriptions (0SD's) e . Flow Diagrams e Piping and Instrument Design Drawings (P&ID's) e Annunciator Arrangement Drawings e Control Complex Design Criteria e Control Room Floor Plans e Control Board Data Packages e Control Board Front Views
- e Emergency Data System Input Data Sheets e CE Owners Group Emergency Procedures Guidelines e Operator Training Materials O e Human Factors Design Information lV s CRDR Nuclear Utilities Task Action Committee Documents e Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) 4.2 Review Documentation Throughout the review process, documents will be processed to re-cord
- data analysis and findings.
In order to facilitate completeness, systematizing and recording of the control room design review, standard forms have been de-veloped. The format of these forms is expected to evolve as re-quired to meet the needs of the review process. These forms and their explanations appear, as samples, in Appendix A and include the following:
- 1. Control Room Inventory Checklist
- 2. System Function Task Analysis Form l . - . _ _ _ . . - . , . - _ . - . . . _ . - - . --_ .
- 3. Control Room Survey Checklist
- 4. Potential HED Report
- 5. HED Analysis Form
- 6. HED Report Any photograph taken to support a CRDR form will be assigned a number traceable to that form.
4.3 Document Control During the course of the CRDR Review, a sizeable amount of infor-mation will be reviewed and collected. This information will be coordinated through the WNP-3 Central Records Support Center. The documentation system will meet the following requirements: o Provide a record of all documents used by the review team as references during various phases of the CRDR (i.e. document numbers and revision will be recorded on the appropriate out-put forms). O e Provide a record of all correspondence generated or received by the review team during the review. e Provide a record of all documents produced by the review team as project output. e Allow an audit path to be generated through the CRDR documentation. e ' Retain project files in a manner that allows future access to help determine the effects of control room changes proposed in the future. l l y, 1 l l
5.0 REVIEW PHASE
; The review phase of the CROR encompasses the activities required to V identify the functions and tasks performed in the control room (Function and Task Analysis), identify the control room equipment installed to perform these tasks (Control Room Inventory), survey the installed equipment for compatibility with human factors guidelines (Control Room Survey), and compare the installed equipment to the functions and tasks to verify performance capability (Verification of Task Performance Capability).
I The results of the review phase are documented on the appropriate forms and any resulting potential HEDs are documented on potential HED forms as per Appendix A. As shown in Table 3-2 the review phase utilizes several team disciplines. The following sections will clarify their responsibilities and functions. 5.1 Control Room Inventory The Control Room Inventory (CRI) will be conducted to identify l l controls and displays available to control room operators. The three (3) major control boards in the WNP-3 control room are: (see Figure 5-1) l e CBl - Engineered Safety Features Control Board e CB2 - Operators Control Esard e 'CB3 - Auxiliary Control Board These control boards and the Remote Shutdown Panel will be the focus of this review. All the essential displays and controls for safe plant operation are contained on these panels. The CRI will include collection of detailed. operational informa-tion for all controls, displays, switches,'and components on each control board which will be docurented on the CRI Checklist Form A-1 (see Appendix A). 3D
1 i 4 As part of the control room inventory, a human factor design con-vention document will be developed to document the presently used
~.
human factor conventions. j 5.2 Control Room Survey j A Control Room Survey (CRS) will be conducted to identify devia-4 tions from accepted human factor principles and guidelines. The j control boards to be surveyed are as indicated in article 5.1. The Control Room Survey includes considerations of the following l major areas: [ e Controls e Annunciator Warning Systems e Communications
- o Panel Layout f e Labels and Location Aids e Process Computers i e Visual Displays e General Layout
{ e Work Station Design j e Emergency Equipment e Environment i
- Tables 5-1 through 5-12 provide a breakdown of typical control room elements with which human factor principles will be compared.
The Control Room Survey is performed by comparing human factor f guidelines, using the Control Room Survey Checklist (see Form A-3, Appendix A), to the control room elements. These checklists have been developed based.primarily on the guidance found in NUREG-0700 Section 6. As part of the Control Room Survey, an evaluation of the control room environment will be performed including a lighting survey and an acoustics survey of the main control room. The CRDR Team will n-) utilize lighting and acoustic specialists to perform this task.
- - - - - . . _ . - - . -= . . _ . . _ - . . - . . . . - - - - ._.- . - . . - .-
The human factor experts on the review team will be responsible for the completion of all checklists for the CRS. J 5.2.1 Operating Personnel Survey An Operator Interview Survey will be conducted to verify potential HEDs and to identify potential HEDs not pre-viously discovered by the Review Team. As WNP-3 is not in commercial operation, this survey will be used only to identify potential HED's based on operating crew usage of equipment. The survey will utilize a structured interview method including the use of matrices of questions to ensure com-prehensive and accurate information. These matrices will be developed using information from CRDR team members, the Control Room Survey, the Function and Task Analysis, and the reference documentation listed in Article 4.1. Trained human factors interviewers will be used to conduct the review. Control room operators will be asked to con-sider questions regarding a specific piece of equipment under various uses and plant conditions to ensure that each use of that equipment is considered. Control room operators will also provide information about any poten-tial operational problems discovered during their training (These problems are currently being documented by opera-tions). Also, a post-interview review by the operator and interviewer, of all information collected during the in-terview, will ensure its accuracy and correctness. I p i
l , 5.3 Function and Task Analysis NUREG-0737 Action Plan Item I.C.1 requires reanalysis of tran-sients and accidents and preparation of technical guidelines. Technical guidelines are defined in NUREG-0899 as documents that identify the equipment or systems _to be operated and list the steps necessary to mitigate the consequences of transients and accidents and restore safety functions. Technical guidelines re-present the translation of engineering data derived from transient and accident analyses into information presented in such a way that it can be used to write E0Ps. The Combustion Engineering Emergency Procedure Guidelines, contained in the CEN-152 Revision 01 report, have been prepared by Combustion Engineering, Inc. for the CE Owner's Group in response to item I. C.1 of NUREG-0737. These guidelines contain technical information and guidance for i dealing with unanticipated accidents including multiple failures, and pressurized thermal shock. The report also provides optimal recovery path, as well as funcionally oriented guidelines, along with supporting information on their development. CEN-152 will be used as the starting point for the Function and Task Analysis. The specific events to be reviewed under Function and Task Analysis include the following emergency procedures (per CEN-152):
- 1. Reactor Trip
- 2. ' Loss of Coolant
- 3. Steam Generator Tube Rupture
- 4. Steam Line Break
- 5. Loss of Feedwater
- 6. Loss of Forced Circulation
- 7. Functional Recovery The above events will be analyzed with and without a loss of offsite power.
f
- l (3 .
)
.. _ .- ~ . _ . - . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . __- . _ . _ . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ - . . _ _ _ . _ _
Since the emergency procedure guidelines contained in CEN-152 are generic, additional review and analysis is required to identify specific operator tasks, the required information that needs to be displayed, and the necessary control functions the operator must perform. This additional review and analysis will be performed to satisfy the function and task analysis requirement of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737, and the CRDR. The results of the function and task analysis will be organized to clearly present the following information:
- 1. the functions that need to be performed,
- 2. the systems to be used in performing those functions,
- 3. tasks to be performed by the operator,
- 4. the information that must be available to the operators to carry out their tasks,
- 5. the control functions the operator will be required to per-form, and
( 6. the anticipated sequence of operator actions. The above information will be used in the Verification of Task Performance Capability activity (see article 5.4) of the CRDR to: (1) identify any missing instruments and/or controls, and (2) identify interface problems that may affect task performance but may not be evident when control room components are examined with-out reference to specific task use (as in the Control Room Sur-vey). The above information will also be considered background for: (1) developing E0Ps, (2) developing training and staffing needs, and (3) verifying Emergency Data System parameters. l 5.4 Verification of Task Performance Capability The Verification of Task Performance Capability will be performed , to assure that the tasks allocated to the control room operator : can be performed using the existing instrumentation and controls. The process of task capabilities verification consists of two
'h steps as detailed below.
l 1
5.4.1 Verification of Availability
~~ Verification of availability will be accomplished by com-s paring the inventory of existing control room instrumenta-tion and controls (documented during the Control Room In-ventory) with the instrumentGtion and control requirements identified in the Function and Task Analysis. Specifi-cally, the results of this comparision will be the identi-fication of instrumentation and controls required by the
, control room operator for task performance, but not pro-vided in the control room. 5.4.2 Verification of Human Engineering Suitability The objective of tne verification of suitability is to identify man / machine interface problems that may affect task performance but may not be evident when control room components are examined without reference to specific task use (as in the Control Roon. Survey). This review will be accomplished by: (1) reviewing the task and anticipated sequence information, from the Function and Task Analysis
} (article 5.3), as applied to the WNP-3 control room con-figuration,and(2) conducting the Operating Personnel Survey as discussed in article 5.2.1.
e {&
..n.. , a .-- - . . , . ,,, ,- , _..,,.,-,,m,_. , ,e-
= - - - - _. .- . _ - - - _. - -.-____ _-
4 r 6.0 HED ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION During the Assessment and Implementation phase, all discrepancies O identified will be analyzed, and the potential impact of each dis-crepancy on safe plant operation will be determined. Discrepancies will
- then be categorized according to their safety consequence. Some dis-crepancies, however, will be candidates for correction by enhancement without the need for categorization relative to safety consequences.
Corrective actions will then be chosen and a schedule for implementation will be developed. a The HEDs identified by the review process are considered Potential HEDs until assessed and dispositioned according to this program. 6.1 Enhancements Many Potential HEDs are the result of minor human engineering vio-lations or incongruent design efforts (e.g. improper abbreviations and tagging, indicator wording and scale marking, system identi- , fications etc.), and can usually be corrected by paint-label and tape enhancement. Potential HEDs selected for correction by
}
enhancement techniques do not require categorization relative to safety consequences. However, the enhancements themselves then must be considered in the evaluation of aggregate HEDs as well as
- their effect on the entire controf room.
Recommended enhancement techniques will be:
- 1. Chosen to optimize the solution of as many HEDs as possible to maximize the effect of each corrective technique solving combinations of problems, not just one-on-one solutions;
- 2. Scheduled in consideration of construction and startup schedules;
- 3. Cost-effective. l bc I
1 1
-.~, , , -._. -, - - - . ~ _ . - - . _ - - . . , . - - _ _ , - - - . - _ _ ~ ~ ~ - . . , _ , t ......--,,~e ..m. -m , _ ~, , . - ._. , . . -
i 4 The Review Team will utilize guidance for enhancement techniques j from both its own experience base as well as those suggested in: EPRI NP-2411 " Human Engineering Guide for Enhancing Nuclear Control Rooms" It should be stressed that enhancements will not be viewed as solutions to serious human factor design problems. All HEDs not correctable by paint-label and tape enhancement techniques will be evaluated for design corrections. 6.2 Assessment of Human Engineering Discrepancies Each HED will be assessed for its seriousness using the following considerations:
- 1. The extent or degree the HED deviates from the guidelines of NUREG-0700, NUREG-0801, or other applicable human engineering guidelines.
- 2. The impact of each HED on operator performance.
- 3. The probability that the HED will degrade operating crew per-('
formance, thereby increasing the potential for operator error. The extent of deviation from each guideline will be determined by utilizing the information collected during the CRS and CRI by com-pleting an HED Analysis Form (Form A-5, see Appendix A).
- The'relevent performance shaping factors will then be reviewed to determine how the HED will impact operator performance (e.g. in-crease fatigue). Relevent performance shaping factors are shown on Table 6-1.
The assessment team will determine: (1) the safety consequences that could result and assign a ranking factor consistent with the seriousness of the consequence, and (2) the likelihood of opera-tor error and assign the appropriate ranking factor. C[ v
, _ _ . . . _ _ .._. . _. _ ___ _..._. _ _ ~ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ ._ .
k The ranking factors to be used will be on a Likert Scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high). For each HED a description of the safety consequence and the pro-bability of error will be stated along with the assigned ranking factors on the HED analysis form. 6.3 Categorization The assessment of a potential HED results in the assignment of safety significance and probability for error as indicated above. This input will be used to assign categories to HEDs according to the guidance of NUREG-0801 as described below. Category I HEDs Associatrad with High Probability Errors and High Consequences Categor.y I HEDs include:
- 1. HEDs identified from operating experience surveys or other means and assessed as having a high probability of con-
, tributing to operator error, and
- 2. Associated with a safety related function and determined that an error could result in unsafe operation or the vio-lation of a technical specification.
HEDs in this category will be considered most serious and will re-ceive' the highest priority for Owner dispositioning. Category II HEDs Associated with Low Probability Errors and High Consequences Category II HEDs include:
- 1. HEDs identified through surveys and other means and assessed as having low probability of contributing to operator error, and
(
- 2. Associated with a safety related function and determined that an error could result in unsafe operation or the vio-lation of a technical specification.
l l HEDs in this category will be considered significant because of the resulting consequences, but because of the low probability of their occurence, disposition is not as urgent as Category I HEDs. Category III l HEDs Associated with High or Low Probability Errors and Low Consequences Category III HEDs include:
- 1. HEDs identified by surveys and other means and assessed as having a high or low probability of contributing to opera-tor error, and
- 2. Associated with safety or nonsafety functions but deter-mined that an error could not result in unsafe operation or the violation of technical specification.
HEDs in this category will be considered for disposition at later dates. Category IV HEDs Not Associated with Errors or Serious Consequences dategoryIVHEDsinclude:
- 1. HEDs identified through surveys or other means and assess-ed as not having significant probability of contributing to operator error, and
- 2. Did not result in unsafe operation or the violation of a technical specification.
HEDs in this category will be re-examined and assessed for their cumulative effects or interactions with other HEDs. If it is de-termined that the cumulative effects could result in unsafe opera-tion or in a violation of a technical specification, the HED's p p will be reassigned to a higher priority category. Correction of the remaining HED's is optional.
l l 6.4 Corrective Action Development l Corrective actions will be developed (on a priority basis per the l d table in article 6.6 below) to bring the HEDs into agreement with I acceptable human factors guidelines or to counteract their effects. The specific corrective actions chosen may be enhance- l i ments, design modifica;. ions, improved training, revised proce-dures, or any of the above either individually or in combination. l The recommended corrective action will be documented on the HED Report form, A-6 (see Appendix A). 6.5 Corrective Action Implementation { The need to correct an identified HED is based on its assigned category. The CRDR team's recommended HED disposition will be
)
forwarded to Plant Operations Comnittee for information and to the appropriate Supply System manager for implementation. Enhance-ments and hardware design changes will be the responsibility of Project Engineering and are to be initiated via the normal design change control procedures. Training and procedure changes are the responsibility of Operations. 6.6 Implementation Schedule The appropriate department will schedule HEDs for correction ac-cording to their category of seriousness per the following table and the existing construction progress: PRIORITY TABLE CATEGORY SCHEDULE PRIORITY I PROMPT 1 II NEAR TERM 2 III LONG TERM 3 IV LONG TERM (Optional) 4 r0 y
HEDs, identified for " prompt" or "near term" correction, will be evaluated against system completion and contractor turnover schedules to determine the exact timing for the correction. In general, the corrections necessary will be performed as soon as practical to allow for subsequent training, procedures, verifica- , tion and validation. The actual schedule for corrections will be negotiated by the Supply System in consideration of availability of instrumentation, cost, status of procedures, training and re-training, and other related concerns. s 4 s. 6 a 4
7.0 VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION 7.1 Verification of Design Improvements The modified control room instrumentation and controls design will be evaluated to assure that the selected design improvements, both individually and collectively, adequately correct their respective discrepancies and do not create other safety problems. The veri-fication will be accomplished by performing the following:
- 1. Comparison of the modified control room design with the con-trol room human factors design conventions document.
- 2. Comparison of the modified control room design with the in-strumentation and controls requirements identified during the Function and Task Analysis.
- 3. Comparision of the modified control room design with approved project design criteria (e.g. electrical separation criteria).
7.2 Validation of Control Room Function The validation process will utilize the upgraded E0Ps and the mod-ified control room or simulator to verify, by walk and talk throughs of event sequences selected from those studied in the Function and Task Analysis, that the functions allocated to the control room operators can be accomplished in an effective manner. The modified control room will include changes resulting from the CRDR and other improvement programs such as SPDS and Reg. Guide 1.97 'Rev. 2. Any potential HEDs resulting from the validation process will be processed as described in Article 6.0, Assessment and Impiementation. i l
.,..r_ ._
, ~ . _ - . _ . . , _ . - . . _ _ _ -. . . _ . _ _ , , _ _ _ . . _
9.0 SCHEDULE See Figure 9-1. I I i l i l 1 I e I e i {O 4 1 l _.s t
l ! ., I
, i i
I i j 1
- 1 l
l FIGURES AND TABLES a i i f J l1 i e i i 'l I r 1
'J
. . ~ . _ --,.m - _ ___- --.,__ __-..-._ -_- -_---- -.- _ . _ _ - _ - - - -
( Planning Submit Program
) I.
Phase Develop CRDR Program Plan __q, Plan ir II. Review e Control Room Inventory Phase e Control Room Survey e Function & Task Analysis e Task Performance Verifi-cation MP Potential Human Engineering Discrepancies 1P III. Assessment & e Assess HEDs and Implementation Categorize Phase e Develop Corrective
~ Actions e Develop Implenentation l -{s) Schedule ir IV. Verification & e Verify Design Validation Phase Improvements
, o Validate Control Room Functions 1P V. Reporting Develop Sunnary Submit Summary Report M Report l
l 1 FLOW CHART OF CRDR ACTIVITIES
, Figure 1-1
}
l l l
- - . . - - - - . - - - - . , - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - . - - - - . - - - - - - - - , - - - - - -~-
Review Team Manager G. MOORE Review Team Leaders l Human Factors L. Lund/G. Opetosky Engineering G. Wilson /R. Seid1/M. Keller Reactor Operations J. Bowlby/W. Trudell Review Team Members Human Factors Engineers C. Shtafiel/D. Gaylin L. Lund Nuclear Systems Engineers J. Das/M. Keller/P. Sarafian Systems Analysis R. Seidl/G. Wilson
, G. Opetosky/M. Keller ~
Instrumentation and Control J. Das/G. Wilson /A. Williams V. Gupta/R. Call /R. Seidl Reactor Operators Computer Engineer R. Call Shift Manager /SR0 F. Chevalier /W. Trudell Reactor Operator /R0 R. Young /C. Williams Training Specialist P. Walzer Support Personnel Technical Specialists Lighting Engineer E. Anderson Acoustic Engineer H. Kaspi CRDR TEAM COMPOSITION l Figure 3 - 1
1 (;b 4 n 1 Cb! ;, U)
/
CB-2 CB-1: EMERGENCY SAFETY FEATURES CONTROL BOARD
' HVAC FOR ESF EQUIPMENT AND FUNCTIONS CONTAINMENT ISOLATION PLANT PROTECTION SYSTEM ELECTRICAL SYSTEM (DIESEL GENERATORS & SAFETY Desk BUSES) y
- SAFETY INJECTION (INCLUDING SHUTDOWN COOLING)
CVCS (BORON INJECTION PORTION) AUXILIARY FEEDWATER
~
Oesk -- CB-1 -. STEAM GENERATOR FEEDWATER & STEAM BYPASS REACTOR COOLANT & PRESSURIZER REACTOR CHARGING & LETDOWN (CVCS BLENDING) REACTIVITY CONTROL PLANT COMPUTER DISPLAYS TURBINE CONTROL GENERATOR CONTROL CB-3: AUXILIARY CONTROL BOARD TURBINE WATER INDUCTION PROTECTION INDICATION TURBINE AUXILIARIES r, [9' " STEAM LINE DRAINS MAKE UP WATER CIRCULATING WATER Shift SERVICE WATER Supervisors CVCS (WASTE HANDLING) [] Office [] STEAM GENERATOR BLOWDOWN HVAC (NON-SAFETY) FIRE WATER PUMPS ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION (N0N-SAFETY) El r1 1
\
Floor Plan For WNP-3 Main Control Room Figure 5-1
~
1983 1984 1985 i l l l s s l i e
- PROGRAM PLAN a l
e ' ! CONTROL ROOM INVENTORY a e CONTROL ROOM SURVEY 8 ASSESS SURVEY HEDS ' a e IMPLEMENT ENHANCEMENTS e CONVENTIONS DOCUMENT e FUNCTION AND TASK ANALYSIS a e VERIFICATION OF AVAILABILITY a e VERIFICATION OF SUITABILITY
- i a e
OPERATING PERSONNEL SURVEY a e LIGHTING SURVEY % e HED ASSESSMENT a e CORRECTION OF HEDS
- e VERIFICATION OF IMPROVEMENTS
! e VALIDATION OF CONTROL ROOM
- FUNCTIONS ,
8
SUMMARY
REPORT
, g CRDR SCHEDULE FIGURE 9-1
SUPPLY SYSTEM PERSONNEL em , Gary Moore 14 years -- Review Team Manager Ron Seidl 12 years James Bowlby 13 years -- Review Team Leaders William Trudell 9 years Mike Keller 11 years Mike Keller 11 years
-- Nuclear Systems Engineers Pete Sarafian 15 years Mike Keller 11 years
-- Systems Analysis Ron Seidl 12 years
- Russ Call 19 years
-- Instrumentation and Control Ron Seidl 12 years i
Russ Call 19 years Fred Chevalier 17 years William Trudell 9 years
, -- Reactor Operations Ron Young 14 years Cleveland Williams 12 years Pete Walzer 22 years Total years of experience -- over 158 years h
Review Team Experience Table 3-1 Page 1 of 3 )
EBASCO SERVICES, INC. PERSONNEL f Glenville Wilson 18 years -- Engineering i Jadu Das 16 years -- Nuclear Systems Engineering Glenville Wilson 18 years -- Systems Analysis Jadu Das 16 years Glenville Wilson 18 years
-- Instrumentation and Control Alvin Williams 15 years Virinder Gupta 20 years Eric Anderson 6 years
-- Technical Specialists Howard Kaspi 25 years Total years of experience -- over 100 years o
W V w Review Team Experience Table 3-1 1 Page 2 of 3 1 i
)
i LUND CONSULTING, INC. PERSONNEL ! N Linda 0. Lund 11 years
-- Review Team Leaders Greogory Opetosky 6 years Christopher Shenefiel 5 years Kenneth Gaylin 5 years -- Human Factors Engineer Linda 0. Lund 11 years Linda 0. Lund 11 years
-- Systems Analysis Greogory Opetosky 6 years j Total years of experience -- over 27 years
'I t Review Team Experience Table 3-1 Page 3 of 3
LUND CONSULTING, INC. PERSONNEL Linda 0. Lund 11 years
-- Review Team Leaders Greogory Opetosky 6 years Christopher Shenefiel 5 years Kenneth Gaylin 5 years -- Human Factors Engineer 1 Linda 0. Lund 11 years Linda 0. Lund 11 years
-- Systems Analysis Greogory Opetosky 6 years Total years of experience -- over 27 years I
Review Team Experience Table 3-1 Page 3 of 3
REVIEW PROCESS DISCIPLINE EMPHASIS I Planning I. Haman Factors Maclear Systems Reactor Operations I & C Engineering II. Review e System Function and Human Factors Task Analysis Nuclear Systems Systems Analysis i Reactor Operations e Control Room Inventory Human Factors I & C Engineering o Verification of Task Human Factors Performance Capabilities Systems Analysis I & C Engineering Reactor Operations e Control Room Survey Human Factors Lighting Engineering Acoustic Engineering III. Assessment and Implementation Human Factors c % Nuclear Systems System Analysis Reactor Operations I & C Engineering IV. Verification and Validation Human Factors I & C Engineering Reactor Operations V. Report'ing Review Team v Major CRDR Processes and Disciplines Table 3-2
SELECTION OF CONTROLS e General Principles e Prevention of Accidental Activation DESIGN PRINCIPLES e Direction of Movement e Lading of Controls PUSHBUTTON CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS e Pushbutton Design Principles e Round Pushbuttons e Legend Pushbuttons ROTARY CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS ( e Rotary Control Design Principles e J-Handles e Key-Operated Controls e Continuous Adjustment Rotary Controls e RdtarySelectorControls OTHER CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS e Thumbwheels e Slide Switches e Toggle Switches e Rocker Switches ( Control Room Elements - Controls Table 5-1
GENERAL SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS I e General System Design e Alarm Parameter Selection e First Out Annunciators e Prioritization e Cleared Alarms AUDITORY ALERT SUBSYSTEM e Signal Detection e Coding VISUAL ALARM SUBSYSTEMS e Visual Annunciator Panels e Visual Alarm Recognition and Identification e Arrangement of Visual Alarm Tiles e Visual Tile Legends e Visual Tile Readability 0PERATOR RESPONSE SUBSYSTEM e Controls e Control Set Design e Annunciator Response Procedures e
\O Control Room Elements - Annunciator Warning Systems Table 5-2
VOICE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS I e General Requirements for Voice Communications Systems e Conventional-Powered Telephone Systems e Sound-Powered Telephone Systems e Walkie-Talkie Radio Transceivers e Fixed-Based UHF Transceivers e Announcing Systems e Point-to-Point Intercom Systems e Emergency Communications AUDITORY SIGNAL SYSTEMS e Use of Auditory Signals e Signal Meaning e Auditory Coding Techniques e Propagation of Signals e Frequency e Signal Intensity e Reliability ( Control Room Elements - Communications Table 5-3
- - - . _ . - . _ . _ _ - - _ . - - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ ___--. _._ ..-.-.. ___... ~.- _.. --
, GENERAL PANEL LAYOUT e Assigning Panel Contents e Effective Panel Layout e Enhancing Recognition and Identification LAYOUT ARRANGEMENT FACTORS e Sequence, Frequency of Use, and Functional Considerations e Logical Arrangement and Layout e Layout Consistency e Standardization SPECIFIC PANEL LAYOUT DESIGN j e Separation of Controls e Strings or Clusters of Similar Components b o Mirror-Imaging t 4 i Control Room Elements - Panel Layout Table 5-4
, _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ . . .~ _ _ - _ . _ . . . . . . , _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ . . _ _.______. _ _._ ._
BASIC CONTROL-DISPLAY RELATIONSHIPS e Single Control and Display Pairs e Multiple Controls and Displays GROUPS OF CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS e Location and Arrangement of Control-Display Groups e Single Panel Arrangements e Controls and Displays in Separate Planes l l DYNAMIC CONTROL-DISPLAY RELATIONSHIPS e General Movement Relationships e Control-Display Ratio O i
- D Control Room Elements - Control-Display Integration Table 5-5
I LABEL PRINCIPLES e Need for Labeling e Hierarchical Scheme LABEL LOCATION e Placement e Mounting e Spatial Orientation e Visibility LABEL CONTENT e Kinds of Information e Word Selecton e Consistency e Symbols e Brevity e Similarity e Functional Groups e Control Position Labeling e Access Opening, Danger, Warning, and Safety Instruction Labeling LABEL LETTERING e Readability e Style Control Room Elements - Labels and Location Aids Table 5-6 - Page 1 of 2
i
- USE AND CONTROL OF TEMPORARY LABELS i
j e Use I e Control LOCATION AIDS :
- e Need for Location Aids
) e Demarcation l l e Color j , e Use of Mimics 4 i 1 i p v Control Room Elements - Labels and Location Aids Table 5-6 - Page 2 of 2 l m--ag',+.py>9-- - - -w,,e,.wwe yg mem9gy- 9 my-++ ye g yy--+m -9yggwwvy v-w*m eg -w em 9 + 7 y v-yyq
- p e pe -+% 9 -y 9 y yygw+wgma.-w-gywa - a w m , ww - pim w-eg e ss m -w mer meee ewwwh-vv-A-- e'
COMPUTER ACCESS e Software Security e Operator / Computer Dialogue , i e Prompting and Structuring l e Data Entry - Keyboards i e Computer - Function Controls e Other Control Devices e Computer Response Time to Operator Queries e Access Aids CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) DISPLAYS e CRT Display Characteristics e Symbols and Characters e Operator-Display Relationships e Data Presentation Format e Screen Layout and Structuring e Messages e Graphic Coding and Highlighting e Mu'ltiple-Page Considerations PRINTERS e Printer Characteristics
~
e Alarm Messages e Graph and Table Requirements D ~ Control Room Elements - Process Computers _ Table 5-7
PRINCIPLES OF DISPLAY e Information to be Displayed e Usability of Displayed Values e Readability e Printing on the Display Face e Scale Marking j e Color Coding METERS e Directionality of Movement and Numbering with Fixed-Scale Moving-Pointer Meter o Pointers e Zone Marking e Orientation of Markings on Fixed-Scale Meters e Moving-Scale Meters LIGHT INDICATORS e Characteristics and Problems of Light Indicators e De' sign and Use of Non-Legend Light Indicators e Design and Use of Legend Light Indicators GRAPHIC RECORDERS e General Characteristics of Graphic Recorders e Specific Recorder Types (0 Us Control Room Elements - Visual Displays Table 5-8 Page 1 of 2 I
i I
- 1. '
! MISCELLANE0US DISPLAY TYPES l I e . Drum-Type Counters e Electronic Counters ; i
- i; 1
l l 1 , ! l 1 i i : I I 4 i L j ! t 3 i e
. i i
1 i-1 i
- l
. i
- j. Control Room Elements - Visual Displays
,. Table 5-8
- Page 2 of 2 i-r' . . . - . . _ . _ . . - .. _.- _ _c
GENERAL LAYOUT e Accessibility of Instrumentation Equipment e Consistency of Manning with Equipment Layout e Furniture and Equipment Layout e Document Organization and Storage e Spare Parts, Operating Expendables, and Tools e Supervisor Access i e Nonessential Personnel Access 1 l( ! Control Room Elements - General Layout Table 5-9
l WORK STATION DESIGN e Anthropometric Basis for Equipment Dimensions e Stand-Up Console Dimensions e Sit-Down Console Dimensions e Sit-Stand Work Stations e Vertical Panels e Use of Procedures and Other Reference Materials at Consoles e Desk Dimensions e Chairs b e c0 Control Room Elements - Work Station Design Table 5-10
j- EMERSENCY EQUIPMENT e Fire, Radiation, and Rescue Equipment e Emergency Equipment Storage l l I I J j . A i l 4 t . i i l l Control Room Elements - Emergency Equipment Table 5-11
ENVIRONMENT ( e Temperature and Humidity e Ventilation e Illumination e Emergency Lighting e Auditory Environment e Personal Storage e Ambience and Comfort l l Control Room Elements - Environment Table 5-12
PHYSICAL FERFORMANCE e Fatigue e Discomfort e Injury e Control suitability i SENSORY / PERCEPTUAL PERFORMANCE e Distraction e Boredom o Visibility e Readability e Audibility e Noise e Display adequacy l e Inconsistency with stereotypes and conventions t CONGNITIVE PERFORMANCE e Mental overload e Me'ntal boredom o Confusion e Stress e Sequential or compound errors ~ Performance Shaping Factors Table 6-1 Page 1 of 2
, TASK VARIABLES I jt. e Task duration e Task frequency l t I ! e Task criticality l ] e Task difficulty l e Communication needs e Delay or absence of necessary feedback o Concurrent Task requirements i
; e Job aids required
! e Response characteristics , l i a) accuracy requirements b) speed requirements i-i t i 4 i . i l I) }. Performance Shaping Factors Table 6-1 Page 2 of 2 I l
APPENDIX A DATA COLLECTION FORMS O t e
-~
8 Page: Of Date: CONTROL ROOM INVENTORY CHECKLIST
- 1. Equipment Identification No.:
- 2. Label:
- 3. Instrument / Control Type:
1
- 4. Location (Control Board / Panel /Section):
O 5. Actuation:
- 6. Scale:
- 7. Color Coding:
t
- 8. Other:
i 1
)
Fonn A - 1
Control Room Inventory Checklist 4 There are eight (8) major categories to be documented on the CRI Checklist.
- These are
3 (1) Equipment Identification No. (2) Label (3) Instrument / Control Type (4) Location (Control Board / Panel /Section) (5) Actuation (6) Scale (7) Color Coding (8) Other Equipment Identification No. - This unique number is used on all forms during the CRDR. Each piece of instrumentation, module, or control will have its own number. This enables all gathered information to be easily traceable cross indexed and analyzed during other phases of the CRDR. Label - This category describes the actual engraving on the nameplate of the instrument or the control . Instrument / Control Type - This entry point explains the instrument or control 4 design type (i.e pushbutton, legend indicator light). Location - The location specification is divided into panels (CB1-CB3 and l Demote Shutdown Panel (RSP))and rows (A through S) and columns (1 through 61 in sequence beginning with first row on left of CB1 around the room to the 4 rightofCB3). Actuation - If the control board element is a control of any type, an actuation specification is listed here. (i.e. rotate, press, etc). 1 Scale - This portion of the CRI Checklist form explains the upper and lower I limits of the scale values and the major and minor increment markings between l 9 the scale values. A-1-1
Color Coding - Details the coding utilized in the control or instrument
}) (i.e. red-closed, green-open).
Other - Space is provided here for comments relevant to the specific instrument-or control detailed on the form. Responsibility - The Control Room Inventory will be completed by the Human Factor Control Room Survey Review Team with input from the Architect-ural Engineers, plant opera,tions and technical personnel . c0 e t i P A-1-2
i (] Abbreviation List for Inventory I = Instrument C = Control KL = Key Lock PR = Pen Recorder MP = Multiple Pen Recorder l PB = Push Button RM = Rotary Meter HM = Horizontal Meter VM = Vertical fieter FS = Fan Switch EFS = Extended Fan Switch BI = Backlight Indicator M = Module MA = Manual Auto Station RC = Rotary Control ANN = Annunciator Tile 4 Exampie I-VM = Instrument (vertical meter) C-PB = Control (push button) I-RM = Instrument (rotary meter) ( A-1-3
Inventory Convention Listing Color Convention conv. 1 - Black letters on white background - red pointer conv. 2 - Black letters on white background cony. 3 - Green - closed /off Red - open/on cony. 4 - Red manual. White auto conv. 4.5 - Red-Green for separate channels and corresponding pointers cony. 4.8 - White slit indicator on black control 4 Activation Conventions conv. 5 - Pushbutton and thumbwheel cony. 6 - Key locks - left close/right open cony. 7 - Pushbutton(press) cony. 8 - Rotation Activation J l A-1-4 l 1 I
l 1 l l
's Function and Task Analysis i
I l i (Later) l o 9 l l l I Form A - 2
.. . - , . - - . - - . - . . - .--.....---- -.----- -- --.-... -.-...~-.- - .-.-.--.-.- -
SAMPLE CONTROL ROOM SURVEY CHECKLIST V Checked Further Action / l N/A Remarks / Comments 6.9.1.2 MULTIPLE CONTROLS OR DISPLAYS (continued)
- b. SINGLE CONTROL, MULTIPLE DISPLAYS --
When more than one display is affected by a single control, the array should conform to the following conditions: (1) Displays should be located above the control . (2) The control should be placed as near as possible to the display, and preferably underneath the center of the display array. (3) Displays should be arranged horizontally or in a matrix. (4) If it is not feasible to mount displays above the control, they should be mounted to the left of the control. CD NJ (5) Where there is a normal order of use, displays should read from left-to-right, top-to-bottom, or in other natural sequence. (6) Where the above techniques cannot apply, or where for other reasons the control-display relationship is not clearly apparent, layout enhancement techniques should be employed. See Guideline 6.8.1.3. (7) Displays should not be obscured during control manipulation.
, c. DISPLAY SELECTORS -- Where displays are selected for viewing using a rotary selector switch, the following should apply:
(1) The control should move clockwise from 0FF (if appropriate) through settings 1, 2, 3. . .n. (2) The control position sequence should conform to the display sequence. (3) Control position indications should correspond with display labels. (4) Displays should read off-scale, not ,p A .J zero, when not selcted, especially if zero is a possible parameter displayed (see Exhibit 6.9-2). Form A - 3
P0TENTIAL HED REPORT O I ! I.D. Number: Function: Name: i Location: System: 4 Description of Source HED:
'h j Guidelines Violated:
4 l Comments: Next Action:
'c Form A - 4
l EXPLANATION OF POTENTIAL HED FORM o There are nine (9) major categories to be documented on the Potential HED Form. Those are: (1) I.D. Number (2) Function (3) Name (4) Location (5) System (6) Description of Source HED (7) Guidelines Violated (8) Coments (9) Next Action I.D. Number: This entry point specifies the identification number which appears on the architectural engineering front elevation drawings. All panel elements are uniquely numbered whether they be module, control or ( display. Many modules contain multiple elements within the same module. Each element has been given a unique number within the same module to assure complete breakdown. Function: This entry point describes the instrument or control's function within the,overall system. j Name: The name is the actual nameplate identification given to the
, individual instruments and controls.
Location: The location specification is divided into panels (CBl - CB3 and Remote Shutdown Panel (RSP)) and rows (A thru S) and columns (1 thru 61 in i sequence beginning with first row on left of CB1 around the room to the f rightofCB3). l System: Identifies system within which the described instrument or control is involved. A-4-1
Description of Source HED: Describes the HED discovered or the actual problem which was identified. Guidelines Violated: Details the exact guideline which relates to the HED identified. Comments: Space provided for extra comments which are applicable to the identified HED. Next Action: If a simple fix can expedite the HED identified and reviewed, this section is utilized to detail the fix which is recommended. Responsibility: The potential HED Form will be filled out by the Human Factor Control Room Surevy Review Team with input from plant operation and technical personnel . O D w.) A-4-2 l
Page Of ID# m HED ANALYSIS FORM
- 1. Description of HED:
- 2. Degree of Deviation from Guideline:
- 3. Performance shaping factors:
f I
- 4. Safety consequences:
- 5. Probability of HED causing operator error:
- 6. Interaction of HED with other HEDs, systems, events:
l
- 7. Category Number:
8. Approvals: __Vaman factors Nuclear Systems Systems Analysis Reactor Operations I&C Engineering Date 1D - Form A - 5
i i HED Analysis Form
.U There are eight major sections to the HED Analysis Form.
These sections include: (1) I.D. # (2) Description of HED (3) Degree of Deviation from Guideline (4) Performance Shaping Factors (5) Safety consequences (6) Probability of HED causing operator error (7) Interaction of HED with other HEDs, systems, events (8) Category Number I.D.#: The identification number that is entered here will correspond with the ID # entered on the preceding CRDR Forms. This will allow for ease of indexing and grouping of HED infonnation. iD mg Description of HED: This section is used to specify and identify the Human Engineering Discrepancy under analysis and the specific guideline violated. Degree of Deviation from Guideline: The information entered in this gection will specify which guideline (s) is in violation and to what extent the found HED deviates from the guideline (s) specified. The reference documents to be used for the
, guidelines are primarily:
e NUREG 0700 " Guidelines for Control Room Design
, Reviews" and supplemented as needed by i
e NUREG 0801 " Evaluation Criteria for Detailed Control Room Design Reviews", And applicable Human Engineering Guidelines (i.e. Mil Std. 1472 C). 4 A-5-1
,_ . - , . _ . . _ . . . . - - . _ _ . . . _ , . - . . _ , , __ ._-.m.
l l O.
~( ) Performance Shaping Factors: This inforr.1ation will be a subjective analysis to determine how the HED will impact operator performance (i.e. task frequency). Performance shaping factors will be included in the ranking process for HEDs.
Safety Consequences: A ranking of the potential for serious safety consequences and a description of the consequence will be entered here. Probability of HED causing operator error: A ranking of the proba-bility of an operator error caused by this HED as well as description of the type of error will be entered here. Interaction of HED with other HEDs, systems, events: The information entered here will be a composite description explaining the interactions HEDs may have with other HEDs, events, and g-) or systems. Detailed information of interacting HEDs will be ';k ) documented, compiled, grouped and coded as part of the HED analysis. Category number: The information entered here will be a categorization of found HEDs ranging from Category I - Category IV. The guidance found in NUREG 0801 " Evaluation Criteria for a Detailed Control Room Design Review" will be used to enter this information as described in the WNP-3 Program Plan. 9 v' A-5-2
; HED REPORT 3
HED No. Log No. Name: I.D.#: Location: Category: I II III IV N/A To Be Corrected On: Problem: Proposed Modifications Or Enhancements: Modification Or Enhancement Chosen: Reasoning: 4 Related Documents: 5 i Approvals: , Human Factors Nuclear Systems Systerrs Analysis Reactor Operations I & C Engineering Date i fonn A - 6 i _ . . , - . . . - - . - . - - . . . - . . . . , _ . . _ . _ _ - - - ~ . , . , . . . . . _ - ~ . . . _ . _ _ _ , , . _ , , - - - , _ . - . . . . . . - - , _ _ , , . , , - _ . . , - . - , _ . _ . , _ , _ - - , . -
HED REPORT FORM 3 'O t The HED Report fom includes the twelve (12) Sections listed below: (1) ID # (2) HED Number i (3) Name (4) location (5) Photographic Identification # (6) HED Category L (7) To be Corrected on (Date or outage) (8) Problem t (9) Proposed Modifications or Enhancements (10) Modification or Enhancement Chosen 4 (11) Reasoning !(D
- V (12) Related Documents (Name/Page)
The HED Report form sumarizes the earlier forms (Potential HED Form and the j HED Analysis Forms) and develops an overall report of the identification, ! categorization and mitigation method and schedule for each HED. I.D. #: Identifies the unique identification number for the panel element which is involved in the reported HED. HED Number: The number which identifies the Guideline violated by the HED is entered here. The basis cf the Control Room Survey Checklist was derived from NUREG 0700, Sec. 6 - (Guidelines for Control Room Design Reviews) Mil Std 1472 C and various Human Factor Manuals including: s-. Woodson " Human Factor Design Handbook" A-6-1
o McConnick " Human Factors in Engineering and Design" e Hutchingson "New Horizons for Human Factor Design" e Meister " Human Factor Theory and Practice" Where the Control Room Survey Checklist was derived from Mil Std 1472 C and NUREG 0700, guideline numbers are assigned here. However, when information is derived from Human Factors Handbooks, the book author and page number will be entered. Name: The actual nameplate engraving for the instrument or control will be entered here. Location: The location specification is divided into panels (CB1 - CB3 and Remote Shutdown Panel (RSP)) and rows (a through S) and columns (1 through 61 in sequence beginning with first row on left of CB1 around the room to the right ofCB3). HED Category: In accordance with NUREG 0801 (" Evaluation Criteria for Detailed Control Room Design Reviews) a category number will be circled which will aid in a description of HED significance. To Be Corrected On: This section specifies the correction schedule for a specific HED in accordance with the categorization scheme described in NUREG 0801. Problem: Describes the HED discovered or the actual problem which as identified. Proposed Modification or Enhancements: Modifications and/or Enhancement suggestions. A-6-2 -
f Modification or Enhancements Chosen: Specifies which of the suggested HED mitigation methods were chosen. Reasoning: States the basis behind the chosen modification or Enhancement. Related Documents (Name/Page): This entry point is utilized if more than one HED or instrument / control is involved with any one HED Report form. This simplifies cross-referencing HEDs and mitigation of interacting HEDs. Drawing numbers and revision will also be entered here when applicable. Responsibility: The HED Report Form will be completed by the Assessment Team. e D A-6-3 l l
( i I APPENDIX B RESUMES i f 9 e l 1 1 1
.c SUPPLY SYSTEM PERSONNEL e
CO
J. A. BOWLBY - Reactor Operation d(_) EDUCATION: NAPA College - A.A. Degree, 1968 Continuing Education at: University of NC - Wilmington North Carolina State - Raleigh Grays Harbor College - Aberdeen, WA Center for Degree Studies - Scranton, PA Carolina Power & Light - 1974 - 1981
, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant BSEP Systems Training Reactor Operator License Training and License Senior Reactor Operator Training 'and License U. S. Navy - 1968 - 1974 Electrician's Mate "A" School Basic Nuclear Power School Nuclear Prototype Training EXPERIENCE: Over 13 years total 1981 to Washington Public Power Supply System Present Shift Manager
("fs- (over 1 yr) 1974 to Brunswick Boiling Water Reactor 1981 Aux Operator (over 7 yrs) Control Operator Senior Control Room Operator Shift Foreman MILITARY EXPERIENCE: -
, 1969 to U. S. Navy 1974 Electrical Operator at S1w (over 5 yrs) Prototype NPTU Idaho Qualified Electrical Load Dispatcher U.S.S. Enterprise CVAN 65 l
fO 1 i
, -.. - , .e w , -- -- e. .. .- - ,w - ,,
RUSSELL A. CALL - Senior Instrumentation & Control Engineer _ EDUCATION: Service: Coast Guard Engineman School, 3 months, graduated 1957 i Co*lege: City College of San Francisco, A.A. Degree
. Electronics Engineering Technology, graduated 1963
' with Honors Special Courses: Reactor Physics at EBR II, 8 weeks Xerox Data Systems, Sigma 5 Computer School, 16 weeks Beehive Medical Electronics Inc., Keyboard Display School, 3 days Data General Corp. , Nova II Computer School, I week i University of Wisconsin, Uninterruptible Power,
; Systems Design course, I week WPPSS Time Management Workshop, I day ISA Flow Instrumentation Seminar, 1 day General Electric Relay Seminar / School, I week ISA Programmable Controller, I day Honeywell 4500 Computer School, 18 weeks EXPERIENCE: Over 19 years total i 1976 to Washington Public Power Supply System i
Present Senior Instrument and Control Engineer 4 (over 6 yrs) 1963 to Argonne National Laboratory 1976 Operations Staff Specialist (over 13 yrs) EXPERIENCE i REVIEW: i Responsible for review, consultation, and comment on the design criteria, quality requirements, specifications, and bid documents for WNP-3/5 nuclear power plants. Participated in preparation, review, and approval of change orders, nonconformance reports, licensing documents and amendments, construction contracts, and overall l system design. Highlights of the job included i responsibility for the plant computer requirements, instrument rack and control board specifications, and the security system design requirements. (
F. L. CHEVALIER - Shif t Manager ~ EDUCATION: Centralia Community College, 1978 to Present A.A. Degree - General Studies Carolina Power and Light (1974 - 2 years) Brunswick Steam Electric Plant BSEP Systems Training 12 weeks Reactor Operation License Training 6-month Certified SR0 Dresden Unit II Senior Reactor Operator License U. S. Navy - 1965 to 1972 Machinist Mate "A" School Basic Nuclear Power School Nuclear Prototype Training Nuclear Welder School PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Over 17 years total 1977 to Washington Public Power Supply System ( Present Senior Reactor Operator (over 5 yrs) Operations Engineer Shift Manager 1975 to Argonne National Laboratory 1977 Coolant Operator (over 2 yrs) Reactor Operator ~ 1972 to . Brunswick Boiling Water Reactor 1975 AUX Operator (over 3 yrs) Control Operator Senior Control Operator MILITARY . EXPERIENCE: - 1965 to U. S. Navy 1972 Mechanical Operator at S5G Prototype NPTU Idaho (over 7 Emergency Nuclear Welder years) Qualified all Mechnaical Watch Stations and Engineering Watch Supervisor USS U.S. Grant SSBN 631, MDIVLP0 MMI (SS)
i MICHAEL F. KELLER - NUCLEAR SYSTEMS ENGINEER EDUCATION:
~~
e 1980 RENESLAER POLYTECHNICAL INSTITUTE Troy, N.Y. Courses in finance, accounting and statistics e 1979-1976 RENESLAER POLYTECHNICAL INSTITUTE Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering Studies emphasized structural analysis, control systems, material science and nuclear instrumentation. e 1972-1967 UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA Charlottesville, VA. Bachelor of Science in Nuclear Engineering Studies included reactor theory, computer science, heat transfer, fluid mechanics and advanced mathematics, o Continuing Education Risk Assessment - July, 1982 Equipment Qualification - May,1982 (General Physics Corp.) (WyleLaboratories) PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: (11 years) e WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM Satsop Nuclear Power Plant Elma , WA.
- Current to June, 1981 Senior Project Engineer - Nuclear Responsible for technical management of Nuclear Steam Supply System contract, including providing Owner direction to Architect / Engineer and NSSS vendor as required. Additional responsibilities include the following:
e Managing equipment qualification program for WNP-3, including s developing program plan, establishing commercial criteria and accepting key submittals. e Supporting licensing activities, including FSAR development and approval, responding to NRC questions, establishment and defense of licensing positions. e Coordination of post TMI improvements. e Managing WNP-3 participation into joint utility group dealing with generic issues involving NSSS vendor supplied reactors. Heavily involved in design verification and construction efforts in support of start-up and operation of WNP-3. e COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC. Windsor, Ct.
- May,1981 to June,1977 Reactor Project Engineer Major responsibility was to coordinate design activities between Reactor
- Engineering departments and comercial CE Project Offices. This included e Resolving interface problems with customer and interpreting contract technical requirements.
e Assisting in development and sale of new products. e Developing and maintaining coordinated departmental positions on Quality Assurance, regulatory criteria and industry standards. Areas of coordination included mechanical design of fuel, support structures [
;s and reactor servicing equipment as well as thennal/ hydraulic design of the reactor.
MIT)AELF.KELLER PAGE 2 PROFESSIONAL s EXPERIENCE: (Continued) e COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC. Windsor, Ct.
- June,1977 to August,1975 Refueling Equipment Engineer Primarily responsible for design and procurement of reactor refueling equipment, this effort entailing e Design of speicalized equipment using structural, thermal and fluid mechanics analytical techniques.
e Writing equipment procurement specifications, system descriptions and operating /naintenance instructions. o Approving vendor designs and conducting equipment acceptance testing. e Trouble-shooting field equipment problems. e NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRYDOCK COMPANY Newport News, Va.
- August,1975 to June,1972 Fluid Systems Engineer Responsible for design of reactor fluid systems for submarine propulsion plants. Involved in this effort were specifics such as:
e Developing system design criteria and subsequently analyzing system thermal / hydraulic characteristics. . e Providing independent review of reactor fluid and electrical system designs.
. e Writing fluid system descriptions, maintenance instructions and f.(
operating procedures. e Additionally, assisted in design of shipboard refueling systems. f
GARY L. MOORE - REVIEW TEAM MANAGER EDUCATION: BSEE, University of Washington,1973 CONTINUING EDUCATION: Nuclear Environmental Qualification Seminar Appendix R, 10CFR50 Workshop Protection and Grounding of Distribution Systems Construction Contract Administration Seminar MILITARY: US Navy Aviation Electronics and Flight Simulator School - 29 Weeks PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: (14 years) 1978 to Present: SENIOR ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 3 -- Responsible for engineering activities related to design, fabri-cation, construction, installation, testing, and operation of plant electrical equipment, systems and components. Specific responsibilities include: e Performance of design and system reviews . e Review and approval of electrical portions of the FSAR; development of Owners positions and responses to regulatory questions and concerns. e Overview of A/E design and construction activities. 1976 to 1978: ELECTRICAL FIELD ENGINEER, WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 -- Responsible for technical implementation of design, including interpretation of technical requirements. Review and resolve field-generated design changes and non-conformance reports. Provide field input to the design organization in support of project goals. 1973 to 1976 ELECTRICAL FIELD ENGINEER, BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION, RICHLAND, WASHINGTON -- Responsible for procurement, installation, inspection and testing of electrical raceway and equipment within assigned areas. Actively involved in the solution of initial heat tracing problems. Extens testin,1ve g of design one of modification, the first systems checkout, to be and functional turned over to the client. . 1965 to 1969 Flight Simulator Instructor / Technician, United States Marine Corps. Responsible for maintenance of analog and digital electromechanical simulator systems. Conducted emergency procedures training sessions for advanced fighter aircraft.
PETER G. SARAFIAN - NUCLEAR SYSTEM EDUCATION: - 1976 PhD in School of Nuclear Engineering, minor in Metallurgy (Grade point average 3.9/4.0) Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 4 1970 MS, Nuclear Engineering (Grade point average 3.9/4.0) Geogia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 1964 BS, Chemistry (Grade point average 3.0/4.0) Duke University, Durham, NC PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: 1981 - Present Washington Public Power Supply System, Elma, Washington Sr. Nuclear Engineer responsible for review of all technical documentation i and reports related to nuclear fuel, conduct design review of reactor coolant system, chemical and volume control system and fuel handling equipment. Prepare assigned sections of the FSAR and/or review same. Prepare technical procedures ( O,' and conduct studies.for quality classification of components and parts. Technical review of purchasing quality class parts and equipment. Instructor of Physics for operator qualification training program. 1976-1981 Exxon Nuclear Co. , Inc. , Richland, Washington Project Design Coordinator and Nuclear Fuel Design Engineer in Fuel Development and Testing group. Responsible for technical proposals, design reports, drafting and reviewing specifications and drawings, interfacing with
. customers and other design groups, and interfacing with and troubleshooting fabrication of nuclear fuel. Conduct mechanical design analyses, manual and computer calculations, testing, and materials evaluations. Responsible for deve'lopment of advanced fuel design concepts and involved in fuel performance model development. .
1973-1975 Savanah River Laboratory, Aiken, SC PhD dissertation research. Thesis topic: stress corrosion cracking of waste tank steels in synthetic nuclear waste solutions. Utilized fracture specimins and electrochemical testing. Experience with SEM, x-ray diffraction, micro-dp v scopy and metallography, basic iron and steel metallurgy, fracture mechanics, potentiodynamic polarization, nuclear was ce management. Left upon completion of dissertation.
l PETER G. SARAFIAN PAGE 2 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: (Continued) 1969 - 1973 Georgia institute of Technology Graduate studies in nuclear engineering with emphasis in reactor engineering and core physics. PhD minor in metallurgy / corrosion science with extensive course work (equivalent to master's degree program). FORTRAN, Monte Carlo and difussion code usage. Research experience in neutron activation analysis, high vacuum technology, radiation effects on metals. Research project terminated due to lack of funding. 1964 - 1969 U.S. Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program l Connissioned Officer on nuclear submarine with over 4 years of operating experience. Shipboard duties included Reactor Shift Supervisor, Main Propulsion Division Officer. Supervised up to 20 technicians in operation and maintenance of nuclear, steam and miscellaneous mechanical systems. Graduate of Naval Nuclear Power School, S3G reat. tor prototype, Submarine (, School, Inertial Navigation School. Left to further education. 1
# i D
, RONALD V. SEIDL I } EDUCATION: University of Wisconsin, Stout - BSIE with concentration in electronics, 1971. Areas of emphasis in electrical and electronic systems, ! 4 production management, process optimization, and ' business economics. l i Lakeshore Technical Institute - Associate Applied Science Degree, Electronics
, PROFESSIONAL (Over 12 years) :
EXPERIENCE: 1977 to Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA Present Lead Project Engineer - Instrumentation and Control Nuclear Units 3 and 5 (over 5 yrs) Responsible for review, consultation, and comment on the design criteria, quality requirements, specifications, and bid documents for two 1100 , megawatt nuclear power plants. Participated in preparation, review, and approval of change orders, workday budget reports, licensing document and .( amendments, construction contracts, and overall system design. Reviewed and evaluated engineering design in detail for specific applications and total system performance. Engineer - Instrumentation and Control, Central Staff An inter-company consulting position involving I & C
. responsibilities in many diviersified areas.
Performed design and design review on varied systems, such as a visitors information facility, the office HVAC system, warehouse fire alarm system, and the Raf t River geothermal experimental power facility. Engineer - Systems Analysis I and C Prepared specific procedures for the analysis of , . power plant control and fluid systems and applied
- the procedures in detail formal analysis of the systems for controlability, proper design and function. Applied extensive interface with mechanical, electrical, chemical, and other angineering disciplines to develop an integrated l
system analysis. 4
,* - , - , - - , , , _ ----,,.,,,------,,,,,-v - -
-,---.,-n _,, - .- - , , . . _ , . - n, - .. --
.= _-- . . . _ - _.
RONALD V. SEIDL Page 2
) PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: (continued) l l
1974 to Ebasco Services, Inc., New York, NY 1977 Engineer - Instrumentation and Control. Detailed engineering of nuclear generating station systems (3 years) ,resulting in the issue of wiring drawings, logic diagrams, physical arrangement drawings, design criteria, and equipment purchase specifications. Prepared written descriptions for safety analysis and environmental reports. Familiar with the industry standards that apply to the design of plant systems. Developed automated control systems for equipment operated in multiple, modes with extreme transient requirements. Prepared det'iled a studies of equipment options considering the physical, operational, and economic impact on the generating station. Developed a compact modular design main control board and remote logic cabinet system, utilizing an operator-oriented design philosophy considering ease of plant operation and compliance with regulatory requirements. 1971 to Wisconsin Public Service Corp., Kewaunee, WI
'N 1974 Instrumentation and Control Technician 05/ Responsible for the initial start up and (3 years) calibration of the electronic and pneumatic control systems at the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant.
Extensive experience in the setup and initial operation of PWR plant nuclear instrumentation, reactor control and protection, radiation monitoring, rod control, core flux mapping, process
, control, computer, water treatment, leak rate test, and secondary plant systems. Planned the instrument shop layout and set up calibration schedule for shop standards. Responsible for the supervision of construction personnel engaged in the installation and modification of process control equipment. Performed actuation time tests of the emergency safety system logic and developed pre-op and periodic test procedures for major control and
! monitoring equipment. Dec. 1971 to Wisconsin / Michigan Power Co. , Two Rivers, WI April 1971 Instrumentation and Control Technician A temporary position assisting in preparation of control systems for the start up and initial opera-tion at the Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant. 0[0 l l - _ -. -. _. - .. . -. . __
RONALD V. SEIDL Page 3 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Responsibilities included calibration, repair, and trouble shooting of control systems. Position required a high degree of competence during j operational tests and repairs to avoid shutdown of i a complex nuclear power facility. EXPERIENCE
SUMMARY
Substantial experience in all f acet's of project engineering with special emphasis in electronic related applications. Detailed experience in instrumentation and control engineering and design . of nuclear power plant systems. Additional ! experience in workday and budget management as related to design efforts. Practical professional experience in the installation, start up, and performance optimization of nuclear generating i station major equipment control systems. ( "~ PROFESSIONAL: Registered Professional Engineer - Washington No. 20838 e e
l t W. J. TRUDELL - SHIFT MANAGER EDUCATION: Washington Public Power Supply System 1981 to Present Academic Courses for SR0 License Requirements Northeast Nuclear Energy Co. Millstone Unit 2 - 1978 Reactor Operator License Training 10 months Senior Reactor Operator License Commonwealth Edison - 1977 Dresden Station Equipment Operator Training Course - 6 months U. S. Navy - 1971 - 1977 Electrician's Mate "A" School Basic Nuclear Power School Nuclear Prototype Training Numerous Advanced Engineering Courses for Electrical Equipment Mohawk Trail Regional High School - 1970 EXPERIENCE: Over 9 years 1981 to Washington Public Power Supply System Present Shift Manager (2 years) Millstone Unit 2
. Control Room Operator with a Senior License 1978 Millstone Unit 2 (1 year) Equipment Operator 1977 to Dresden Station 1978 Equipment Operator (1 year) For three Units and Radwaste Facility 1977 to U. S. Navy 1973 Qualified all electrical operator watch stations (5 years) USS Lafayette SSBN 616 lk l
P. WALZER - Training Specialist ( _ EDUCATION: U. S. Navy - Officer of the Watch Training Program at SIC Prototype
. Supervisory Management Course (Combustion Engineering In-House Course)
University of Hartford (1962-1971) (Various engineering evening courses) Massachusetts Maritime Academy B.S. Degree in Marine and Electr.onics Engineering, 1960 EXPERIENCE: Over 22 years total 1980 to Washington Public Power Supply System Present Training Supervisor (over 2 yrs) 1965 to Combustion Engineering 1980 Prototype Operation and Instruction of Navy j _ (over 15 yrs) Personnel (1965-1971) > l Commercial Nuclear Plant Simulator Instruction (1971-1973) Training Manager (1973-1980) 1962 to ' 1965 Pratt & Whitney Aircraft (3 yeas) 1960 to American Export Lines, Incorporated ! 1961 Ship Steam Plant Operator (1 year) (L(:~sl
O CLEVELAND WILLIAMS JR. - REACTOR OPERATOR EDUCATION: 1967 - Roxborough High School 1969 - Dobbins Vocational School - Transcipt 1970-72 Electronics Tech "A" School; Navy Nuclear Power School 1977-80 VEPC0 Operator Step Program 1980-VEPC0 Reactor Operator License 1981-Licensed North Ann Unit I & II PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: (12 years) 1971-72 U.S. Navy Nuclear Po* ,r Program 1972-76 U. S. S. Nimitz CVN68 RC Division qualified all RC Division Watch Stations Virginia Electric & Power Company - North Anna Power Station Q 1976-1978 -Startup Reactor Operator - Assistant Control Room { Operator 1981-82 Licensed Reactor Operator Units I & II Washington Public Power Supply System 1982 - Present - Control Room Supervisor
. 1
1
'~
R. C. YOUNG - REACTOR OPERATOR EDUCATION: U. S. Navy (1969 - 1975) Machinist Mate "A" School Basic Fire Fighting
' Basic Nuclear Power School Prototype Training S3G Submarine School Secondary Chemistry School Millstone Unit 2 (1975 - 1981)
Control Operater Training SR0 OJT Training CE Simulator Training State of Connecticut Fire (1978 - 1980) Fire Fighting Training PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: (14 years) U. S. Navy (1969 - 1975) Machinist Mate 1st Class
# (1974-1975)
O - USS Benjamin Franklin (SSBN-640) Secondary Chemist, Engine Room Supervisor (1973-1975) Mil' stone Unit 2 (1975 - 1981) Equipment Operator (1975-1980) Final Phases of Construction
* (Initial Fuel Receipt & Inspection Initial Fuel Load, Plant Startup and Testing. Three Refuel Outages)
Control Operator (1980-1981) License No. 5107 WNP-3 (1982 - 1983)
- Control Room Supervisor O
!b i j l i l EBASCO SERVICES, INC., PERSONNEL. l i I j s t l l l . i v
ERIC J. ANDERSON - Lighting Engineer (( .
'_ EDUCATION:
State University of New York, Maritime College at Fort Schuyer - Bachelor of Engineering - 1976 EXPERIENCE: Over 6 years total 1978 Ebasco Services, Incorporated to New York, New York Present (over 4 yrs)
~~
1978 M. Rosenblatt and Son New York, New York 1977 J. J. Henry Co., Inc. to Moorestown, New Jersey 1978 (1 year) 1976 J. J. Henry Co., Inc. to New York, New York 1977 (1 year) EXPERIENCE REVIEW: As Telecommunications Engineer, responsibilities
- s. include preparation of communication equipment detail drawings, communication riser and plan view drawings, interconnection diagrams, installation details, equipment specifications, PSAR (for nuclear projects); review and approval of vendor proposals, equipment drawings and
. manuals; all engineering necessary to provide the required communication coverage during al1 modes of plant operation through selection and specification of telephone, intraplant paging, sound powered telephone and radio equipment suitable for industrial duty.
As Lighting Engineer, responsbilities include preparation of conceptual lighting recommendations, PSAR (for nuclear projects), lighting layout and circuiting, lighting panel details, lighting notes and details, engineering necessary to provide the required illumination (/~N A m through selection and specification of the proper lighting sources and fixtures and the power supplies thereto.
l ERIC J. ANDERSON Page 2 REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE: Client Project Size Fuel Washington Public. WPPSS Unit Nos. 3 & 5 1300 MW ea . Nuclear Power Supply System Houston Lighting Allens Creek NGS-1 1200 MW Nuclear i & Power Co. Houston Lighting Limestone EGS Unit 750 MW ea Coal
& Power Co.
Carolina Power Shearon Harris Unit 900 MW ea Nuclear
& Light Co. Nos. 1, 2, 3, & 4 Minnesota Power Clay Boswell 400 MW Coal
& Light Co. Unit #4 s r- Louisiana Power Waterford Unit No. 3 1165 MW Nuclear (p) & Light Co.
New York State Somerset Unit No. 1 600 MW Coal Ga's Corp.
- O e
m I
JADU G. DAS - Instrumentation and Control / Nuclear Systems Engineering
- EDUCATION: ;
Project Management Techniques Course - Ebasco Services, Inc., 1980 M.S.N.E., Polytechnic Institute of NY, NY, 1976 Nuclear Engineering Course - Gibbs & Hill, Inc.,
~1975 Protective Relay Course - Gibbs & Hill, Inc., 1974 B.S.E.E., Jadavpur University - India, 1966 BACKGROUND:
Lead Engineer with sixteen years eEperience in instrumentation and control design engineering of fossil and nuclear-fueled electric generating stations. Direct and supervise the work of other engineers and design group. Responsible for all phases of instrumentation and control engi'neering department related tasks including development of logic diagrams and control schematics from various mechanical flow diagrams and writing system descriptions; preparation of specifications of main s control board, auxiliary logic cabinet, t,, ,) annunciator system, isolation cabinet, solid-state sequencer cabinet, radwaste system and plant process control; providing instrumentation and control input to electical and mechanical specifications; review and interface of NSSS
, vendor packages; main and auxiliary control board j front view layout and control room design; design of uninterrupted power supply and preparation of separation criteria.
In charge of bid evaluation, vendor coordination, contract negotiation and follow-up of all instrumentation and control engineering department specifications. Knowledge and understanding of NRC guides including new guides on TMI, Code of Federal Regulations, IEEE and ASME Codes and Standards. Worked closely with Project department and has experience in planning and scheduling of the various phases of the project. Worked in professional hands-on environment applying state of the art method and techniques to broad projects for manpower utilization. Responsibilities also include identifying technical problems to top management, coordinating field support resources (~'
\
to so".<e field problems and providing input for designing and developing on-line system application.
. i VIRINDER P. GUPTA - Principal Instrumentation & Control' Engineer
+ EDUCATION: University of Pennsylvania, Graduate courses in Control System Engineering Banaras H University, B.S. in Electrical Engineering, 1961 EXPERIENCE: Over 20 years total 1977 to Ebasco Services, Inc., Present New York, NY . (over 5 yrs) Senior Instrument and Control Engineer 1972 to United Engineers and Constructors Inc. 1977 Philadelphia, PA (over 5 yrs) Electrical Design Engineer 1962 to Hindustan Steel Ltd., Rourkela Steel Plant 1972 Rourkela (over 10 yrs). Electrical Engineer (
SUMMARY
OF EXPERIENCE: Ten years in the Power Plant (coal, nuclear, and
. oil) Instrumentation & Control Engineering. Ten years in the Processing Plant Electrical and Control Systems Engineering, Startup, Revamping and Engineering Management. Engineering and design of various plant systems including development and review of Logic and Loop diagrams. Control wiring diagrams, Instrument list, Computer / Plant interface; Selection and application of hardware
- for instrumentation, control and protection including relays and solio state devices for safety and interlock systems in the control circuit design; Specification and procurement of Plant Main
& Auxiliary Control Boards; Liaison with clients, vendors, construction and startup problems to meet / improve critical project completion schedules; Accomplishing Engineering assignments in accordance with client project requirements regarding scope, scheduling, and budgeting.
d
- - ,n -
VIRINDER P. GUPTA Page 2 ( PROFESSIONAL: Registered Professional Engineer in the States of Pennsylvania and Washington Member Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers
' Senior Member Instrument Society of America l
LC . . I e
HOWARD KASPI - Senior Acoustics Engineer EDUCATION: City College of New York, M.S., 1974, Mechanical l Engineering University of Alabama, B.S., 1969, Mechanical Engineering Specialized courses in industrial and product noise control ASME courses for continuing education, 1979 EXPERIENCE: Over 25 years total 1972 Ebasco Services, Incorporated to Senior Engineer Present (10 years) 1970 The Academy of Aeronautics, New York to Assistant Professor l 1972 (2 years) 1957 Environsphere Incorporated (s-N) Senior Engineer (_ to 1970 (13 years) EXPERIENCE REVIEW: Responsible for noise environmental impact of the construction and operation of fossil and nuclear power plants, industrial plants, and cooling systems. Conducts noise surveys of power plants during plant construction and
- operation and investigates community noise complaints. Performs acoustical analysis of the noise produced by various plant systems and makes recommendations for noise abatement.
Responsible for engineering aspects of entire power plant design for community noise abatement and inplant. personnel exposure (OSHA). Involved in power plant site selections and provides expert testimony at public hearings in support of power plant siting applications. Supervises the work of other consulting firms.
@(~)
HOWARD KASPI Page 2 4 REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE: Houston Lighting & Power Co., Cedar Bayou Electric Station Pennsylvania Electric Company, Homer City Electric Station
~ Iowa Public Service, George Neal Electric Station Louisiana Power & Light Company, Waterford Nuclear Plant New York State Electric and Gas Corporation, Somerset Unit No. 1 Department of Energy /W.R. Grace, Synthetic Gas Demonstration Plant Louisiana Power & Light Company, Waterford Steam Electric Station Jersey Central Power & Light Co. , Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, Hat Creek Project Minnesota Power & Light Company, Clay Boswell Steam Electric Station Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Lake Erie Generating Station
(] } PROFESSIONAL: Registered Professional Engineer in the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Texas Acoustical Society of America American Society of Mechanical Engineers American Society of Engineering Education Tau Beta Pi - Engineering Pi Tau Sigma - Mechanical Enginearing Pi Mu Epsilon - Mathematics i Affiliate of-the Institute of Noise Control Engineering PUBLICATIONS: Co-author of the.IEEE Guide for Station Noise Control Kaspi, H, J Dubois, and TE Vanschaick, 1976. Noise measurement and interpretation of the data in existing power plants. Paper (T N-c)s presented at the Joint Power Conference, Buffalo, NY, Sept.
ALVIN B. WILLIAMS - Instrumentation & Control Engineer
) -
EDUCATION: ) 4 College of Arts, Science & Technology - Jamaica, W. I. BEE, City College of New York, 1978 MEE, Polytechnic Institute of New York - (Expect to graduate 1983) Development Courses:
- 1982 - Effective Oral Presenidtion - Ebasco
- 1981 - Fundamentals of Reliability Engineering -
IEEE .. 1980 - Instrumentation & Control Theory & Application - ISA 1979 - Basic Steam Generating Technology - Ebasco 1979 - Practical Nuclear Power Plant Technology - Ebasco
SUMMARY
, Engineer with four years experience in Instrumentation and Control design engineering of fossil and nuclear - fuel electric generating stations. Responsible for the development of logic diagram and control schematics from various mechanical flow diagram and writing system description. System reliability studies on fossil plant.
, Responsible for the coordination and resolution of comments on qualifications reports for Class IE control room equipment. Assisted in the preparation of specification for temperature and pressure sensors and control room equipment. .
contract modification, and cost estimate. Responsibilities also include review of vendor drawings, liaison with client, vendors, and project personnel. Also, identifying technical problem areas in equipment procurement and contract administration. Other experience includes the installation and maintenance of telecommunication equipment. The
. operation and maintenance of a wood preservation plant.
9
- , ,, r- - , , . - - - . - - - . - - - - - - - %, e- ,, , _ , - . , - ,-_w....- - , , , - . - - -
ALVIN B. WILLIAMS Page 2 REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE: , Client Project Size ' Fuel Position Houston Lighting - Limestone 7SO MW Fossil Support
& Power Company ' Unit 1 Louisiana Power Waterford 1165 MWe Nuclear Support'
& Light Company Unit 3 (PWR)
Ebasco Serv. Nuclear 1300 MWe " Nuclear Support Inc. Reference Plant (PWR) Washington Public WPPSS Units 1300 MWe Nuclear Support Power Supply Sys. 3 & S (PWR) (each) EXPERIENCE: Over 15 years 1978 to Ebasco Services Incorporated, New York, NY Present Engineer- Present (," (5 years) Senior Associate Engineer - 1981-1982 Associate Engineer - 1980-1981 Assistant Engineer - 1978-1980 1973-1978 Publishers Distributing Corp., NY, NY (S years) Sales and Distribution Data Analyst 1968-1972 Zenith Radio Corp., NY, NY (5 years) - Senior Electronics Technician 1967-1968 Post & Telegraph Dept., Jamaica Govt. Service (1 year) Jamaica, W.I.
. Telecommunicatio.n Technician 1966-1967 Wood Preservation, Jamaica, W.I.
(1 year) Plant Operator PROFESSIONAL: IEEE Member ISA Member HONORS: (O3,_/ Eta Kappa Nu Association & Tau Beta Pi Assoc. Member
i { GLENVILLE A. WILSON - Principal Engineer / Systems Analysis / j.f Instrumentation and Control EDUCATION: l College of Arts Sc'ience & Technology - BEE - 1964
- Pace University - MBA - 1978 h -
BACXGROUND: I Registered Professional Engineer with over 18 years ! of experience in electrical and instrumentation
- design engineering of. fossil and nuclear-fueled i . Re s p,0 l
electric generating stations. included the coordination ic analysis and econom,ns of 1 equipment options, preparation of equipment speci-i fications, purchase requisitions, bid recommenda-l tions for purchase, surveillance of equipment -
- orders for compliance with specifications, field support, and client liaison.
! Managerial responsiblities included assignment as l Assistant Project Engineer on a nuclear power } project and supervision of technical design j engineers. j u. EXPERIENCE: Over 18 years total 1978 to Ebasco Services Inc., New York, NY , Present Senior Engineer ! (over 4 yrs) Assistant to Project Engineer 1976 to Burns & Roe Inc., NJ i 1978 Cognizant Engineer i (2 years) 1974 to Chemical Construction Corp. , New York, NY
- 1976 Senior Engineer l (2 years) Instrumentation and Electrical l
i 1970 to Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., New York, NY l 1974 Control Engineer (over 4 yrs) control systems Engineer
]
1969 to ' Parsons-Jurden Corp., New York, NY 1970 Designer . (1 year) 1964 to Jamaica Public Service Company ld.~ 1969 Engineer (over.5 yrs) Shif t charge engineer, electrical and engineer in ~ training
GLENVILLE A. WILSON Page 2 ' CE) _ EXPERIENCE: (continued) Client Project Size Fuel Pusitia l Jamaica Public JPS Rural Elec- -- -- Support Service Company , trification Jamaica Public Old Harbour Unit 100 MW ea Oil Shift Service Company Nos. 1 &2 Charge General Savio Savio Power Plant 26 Oil Suppor Steel Mill Kentucky Rural Big Rivers Unit 175 MW ea Coal Support Electrification Nos. 2 & 3 Virginia Electric Surry Unit 850 MW ea Nuclear Lead Power Company Nos. 3 & 4 Tampa Electric Tampa Unit 1 100 MW Coal / Gas Lead Power Company Sierra Pacific Sierra Pacific .200 MW ea Oil Support Power Company (O Unit Nos. 2 & 3 Department of Coalcon 2 x 106 Coal / Gas Supporj Energy l Department of Techmashimport 4-1360'MT/D Amino ni a Lead l Energy i Algeria Chemicals Sonatrach 109 cuft/D LNG Lead Department of Clinch River 320 MW Nuclear Lead Energy Ebasco Nuclear 1300 MW ea Nuclear Lead Standardization Program W CE, B&W Houston Lighting Limestone 750 MW Coal Suppor
& Power Company Louisiana Power Waterford Unit 1165 MW Nuclear Supp@
& Light Co. No . 3 PROFESSIONAL:
( P. E. - New York IEEE - Member
4 i i I I I I i t i
! l I
l e L t > i i i LUND CONSULTING. INC., PERSONNEL i 1 1 h 4. t Y 4 5 i i. 1 ( l A l (s ' .
, -w we g w n e - -y- w
KENNETH GAYLIN - Human Factor Engineer EDUCATION: Hobart College - 1977 B.S. Human Factors / Interior and Product Design / Human Environment Relations, Cornell University, NY, 1981 BACKGROUND: Mr. Gaylin has four years uf applied and educational experience performing task analysis, systems analysis, and developing pr.ototypes in the human factor engineering and industrial fields. Mr. Gaylin has successfully completed courses in: Human Factors Programming Methods in Design Industrial Design Research on Effects of the Work Setting Model Making (q Perception
- 4) Industrial Design Mr. Gaylin has applied his knowledge in the areas of Systems and Human Engineering Analysis, Warning Systems Design, Manufacturing Processes.
Environmental Psychology, Anthropometry, Lighting Design, Work Station Design and Model
. Making.
EXPERIENCE: Over S years combined educational and professional 1982 Lund Consulting, Inc. - Clifton, NJ to Mr. Gaylin recently developed a section of an Present Instructor Development Manual describing Adult Learning Theory for PSE&G's Nuclear Training Department. Mr. Gaylin is currently involved in developing human factored Writer's Guides for development of procedures. He is also providing his Task Analytic Skills in performing systems analysis for nuclear power plant control rooms. O Y PROFESSIONAL: Human Factors Society
- -1 LINDA 0. LUND - Project Manager / Human Factor Engineer / Systems Analysis!
JD _ EDUCATION: Polytechnic Institute of New York, present Ph.D. Candidate joint degree in Technology Management /IE with thesis in Human Factors. Polytechnic Institute of New York, programs in nuclear engineering, electrical engineering, M.S. in Technology Management (completed 1981 - awarded 1982). Fordham University, B.S. Psychology and Statistics 1972. , , , EXPERIENCE: Over 11 years total 1979 to Lund Consulting, Inc. - Clifton, NJ Present President Ms. Lund optimized the use of her background in (over 4 engineering, management, and the behavioral years) sciences by applying it to the area of human factors and operational concerns in nuclear power plants. { } Ms. Lund has reviewed and developed human performance models, observed and validated operating crew use of emergency procedures, was part of a two-person team performing an assessment of Emergency Preparedness, and. developed a state-of-the art report on operator behavior. Ms. Lund has participated as a full member of a Steering Committee formed to coordinate human factor upgrade programs for nuclear power plants. She provided human factors expertise in such areas as: e control room reviews e procedure upgrade programs e SPDS development and other emergency preparedness items Ms. Lund has been active in the training area developing an Instructor Development program, s supervising skill training programs and stress management services. Ms. Lund has developed productivity improvement programs for maintenance-departments in the fossil industry. 7x
l .-
=
LINDA 0. LUND Page 2 l EXPERIENCE: (continued) l l 1972 Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers l to Standards Engineer & Manager Standards
~
1979 Administration Ms. Lund started her professional career in 1972 as i (7 years) a standards engineer, and shortly thereaf ter, as a Manager of Standards Administration at the Institute of Electrical Engineers. During this period, she had considerabl.e experience in the areas of nuclear, electrical, and electronic standardization as well as administrative and project management experience. In p' articular, her knowledge of human factors was utilized in several NRC projects. Ms. Lund also has extensive experience in the field of data collection, analysis, and data base construction, and has visited and studied numerous nuclear facilities in the US as well as given lectures and courses in the area of data collection and analysis. O PROFESSIONAL: Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers American Nuclear Society Human Factors Society American Management Association National Association of Female Executives American Society for Training and Development Society for Applied Learning Technology PUBLICATIONS:
" Reliability Data Bases - A Review," American Society for Quality Control, 1976.
"The Delphi Procedure as Applied in Project 500,"
IEEE, 1977. IEEE Std. 500-1977, " Guide to the Collection and Presentation of Electrical, Electronic and Sensing Component Reliability Data for Nuclear Power Generating Stations." IEEE Standards, 345 East l 47 Street, New York, NY 10017 (coordinator)
)
w_--______.._._~.._
- a. .'-
LINDA 0. LUND Page 3 ( PUBLICATIONS: (continued) , .
" Human Reliability in Nuclear Power Generating Station," PINY paper, January, 1980, to be published.
" Human Factor Data in Nuclear Power Plant Application," Human Factor Society, October, 1980.
" Review of Effectiveness of Emergency Procedures for Operator Use," prepared for Combus tion Engineering's Owners Group.
~'
"Non-Obtrusive Techniques for Monitoring Operator Performance en Nuclear Power Plant Simulators,"
Human Factors Society, October 13, 1981, Rochester, NY.
" Understanding Human Behavior in Nuclear Power Plant Control Rooms" - appears as part of l NU R EG/ C R- 2S87. " Functions and Operations of Nuclear Power Plant Crews."
9 l . t
, ,-- , , , . - - - ,,,y- --y-. -y w r--,- e , , . , .,-y--
GREGORY J. OPETOSKY - Project Manager / Systems Analysis (O ' / EDUCATION: Polytechnic Institute of New York, Present Degree Candidate M.S. Electrical Engineering Technical Career Institute, New York, NY Degree in Electronics Circuits and Systems Queensboro Community College, Bayside, NY (Equivalent of) B.S. Electrical Engineering from U.S. Air Force including courses in: Avionic Inertial & Radar Navigation Systems Specialist, Hon 6'r Graduate Inertial Measurement System AN/ ASN 90-V ( A7-D) Maintenance, Certificate awarded Doppler Radar Navigation System AN/ APN 190-V (A7-D) Maintenance, Certificate awarded Projection Map Display System AN/ ASN 99- A ( A7-D) Maintenance, Certificate awarded (Oh_/ Career Development Course, Certificate awarded OJT Training and Supervisor Course, Certificate awarded Professional Military Education Courses (management courses) EXPERIENCE: Over 6 years total 1981 to Lund Consulting - Clifton, NJ Present Division Head, Engineering Mr. Opetosky has utilized his operational (2 years) experience to analyze the Maintenance personnel operations at three Boston Edison fossil stations. Mr. Opetosky has provided human factor expertise applied to nuclear power plant control rooms. He has supervised photographing, planned mock-ups of control boards, and developed Control Room Inventory guidelines. Mr. Opetosky made presentations and performed K_(/ ) analysis on man-computer interfaces such as the Safety Parameter Display System. He is intimately familiar with the engineering and
GREGORY J. OPETOSKY Page 2 EXPERIENCE: (continued) human f actor requirements of the Owners Group guidelines including: e Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG) e AT0G e GE Owners Group e Combustion Engineering Owners Group Mr. Opetosky served as project manager for the human factors effort to upgrade San Onofre Unit l's E0Ps. He is principal author of a 110-page S01 Writer's Guide and is developing E0P validation and training programs. Finally, Mr. Opetosky provides services in the area of training and procedures for teams in the military and crews in utility operations. 1977 United States Air Force Avionic Inertial and to Radar Navigation System Specialist, Sergeant 1981 Installed, maintained and repaired Avionic Inertial and Radar Navigation equipment and (4 years) associated equipment.
}
Maintained inspection and maintenance records. Performed preventive maintenance on all equipment. Completed repair tasks in a minimum of time. Achieved highest rating by all endorsers
, evaluating performance abilities.
Supervised and instructed subordinates in techniques of installation, modification, and maintenance of equipment. ; Third noncomissioned officer in charge of systems shop. Appointed Lial' son to ICS Team for Fairchild Republic Co. , Air Research, Litton Co. , and the Kaiser Co. Appointed sponsor to new incoming personnel to assist in all problems pertaining to arrival, in-processing and settling into new environment and work center.- ()O
GREGORY J. OPETOSr,Y Page 3 PROFESSIONAL: Human Factors Society American Nuclear Society Design for Mantainers Committee, Naval Air Development Center PUBLICATIONS:
" Useability of Computer-Man Systems Display" -
presented at SAFE COMP'82 Purdue University, Indiana, October, 1982. , t e e
CHRISTOPHER A. SHENEFIEL - Human Factor Engineer ( ECUCATION: Joliet Junior College - Graduate with Honors University of Illinois - B.S., 1981, Psychology University of Illinois - M.S., 1982 - Human Engineering EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE: 1979 Undergraduate major in Psychology with a to background in: .. 1982 Human Factors / Human Enginee'ing r Computer Science (3 years) Psysiology Mathematics A portion of Mr. Shenefiel's Human Factors train-ing includes Nuclear control room evaluation and improvement. Present research deals with time-sharing multiple tasks and the most efficient method of information presentation to improve multiple task performance. EXPERIENCE: 1981 Research experience at the University of to Illinois Graduate School at Champaign provided Present Mr. Shenefiel with a greater understanding of computers and their application above and beyond (2 years) , the Computer Science classes at the University. Mr. Shenefiel was the Head Data Analyst for Dr. Wickens' Research Group at the Human Engin-eering Lab at college and also helped design computer-based experimentation there. He also had some experience working with a flight simulator (Singer-Link Gat 2) and a voice synthesis / recognition system, which was a major part of his experimentation. Mr. Shenefiel has experience in nuclear control room design and information presentation techniques. He was instrumental in a task analysis which generated an SPDS (safety parameter display system) for the Byron Nuclear Power Plant, a Commonwealth Edison Company r- Plant. This system gives control room operators { w} ,3 / instantaneous and continuous information of the condition of the most critical safety systems in the plant.
CHRISTOPHER A. SHENEFIEL Page 2 (' EXPERIENCE: (continued) Mr. Shenefiel is presently a human factors engineer at Lund Consulting. Inc. His respon-sibilities include providing human factor engineering expertise to all areas of SECY 82-111B requirements including DCRDR, E0P upgrade, SPDS, and Reg. Gd. 1.97 Instrumentation additions. Mr. Shenefiel has worked as chief data analyst for five research projects under Dr. Chris Wickens for the Office of Naval Research at the University of Illinois (Champaign-Orbana Campus):
- 1. Hemispaeric Laterality by Wickens & Sandry
- 2. Multiple Task Timesharing by Derrick (thesis)
- 3. Threat Evaluation and Fault Analysis by Wickens and Sandry
- 4. Timesharing and Laterality on F15 Simulator by Wickens and Sandry 7e's, 5. Multiple Resource Theory and Timesharing by (3_/ Wickens and Micalizi Mr. Shenefiel was in charge of an experiment dealing with critical presentation methods of multiple task information (spatial and verbal) timeshared with a primary tracking task.
P RO FES S I ON A L': Human Factors Society e a %
l I I I i APPENDIX C ACRONYMS I i I (~ i l l I i I i I - s' l ( l
- - - , , . - _ - _ - . _ _ _ . . . _ . , _._. _._._..-.-_____m_. _ _ , . _ , _ . . . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ , _ _ . _ - . . _ _ _ . . . _ .
Acronyms
- 1. CB Control Boards
- 2. CE Combustion Engineering
- 3. CP Control Panels
- 4. CR Control Room
- 5. CRDR Control Room Design Review
- 6. CRT Cathode Ray Tube
- 7. CRI Control Room Inventory
- 8. Engrg Engineering
- 9. E0P(s) Emergency Operating Procedure (s)
- 10. EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
- 11. GA General Alarms 12.
HED(s) Human Engineering Discrepancy (s)
- 13. I&C Instrumentation and Control
- 14. I.D. Identification
- 15. No. Number
- 16. NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
( 17. NSSS Nuclear Steam Supply System
- 18. NUREG Nuclear Regulatory Guidelines
- 19. OSD(s) Operating System vescription(s)
- 20. PC Plant Computer System 21 . P& ids Piping and Instrument Drawings
- 22. Reg. Guide Regulatory Guide
- 23. Rev. 2 Revision 2
- 24. R0 rieactor Operator
. 25. SP Set Point
- 26. SR0 Senior Reactor Operator
- 27. UHF U1tra High Frequency
- 28. WNP-3 Washington Nuclear Project 3 I ,h
,w l l
. - _ _ _ , . . .-. __ mm -- - Ai .- _. -..- - a .L s. -- . . - -
9 l 4 {
*rs vi f
APPENDIX D REFERENCES l l 1 l ( ., 1 t I i
, ~ , ., .. . .,--.. ,. , , ,, .,.. ,,,--... , - _.._,_._ - _ . . - _ . . _ . . _ - - - _ . - - _ . . . . , , - . . - . . . , , . . . . . - - , . _ . . _ - - _ - - - _ - _ _ . , _ . .
REFERENCES
~
- 1. Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 - Requirements for Emergency
( Response Capability (Generic Letter No. 82-33) USNRC, Washington, DC, December 17, 1982
- 2. NUREG-0700 - Guidelines for Control Room Design Reviews USNRC, Washington, DC, September,1981
- 3. NUREG-0700 - Appendix C- Control Room Operating Personnel Interview Protocol USNRC, Washington, DC, September,1981
- 4. NUREG-0801 - Evaluation Criteria for Detailed Control Room Design Reviews USNRC, Washington, DC, October,1982
- 5. NUREG-0899 - Emergency Operating Procedures Development Process NSNRC, Washington, DC, August,1982
- 6. Regulatory Guide 1.97 Revision 2 - Instrumentation for Light-Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Plant and Environs Conditions During and Following an Accident USNRC, Washington, DC, December,1980
- 7. EPRI NP-2411 Project 501 Human Engineering Guide for Enhancing Nuclear Control Rooms Prepared by Honeywell Inc., Technology Strategy (O-Center and Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, Inc.
Final Report May,1982. Copyright,1982
- 8. Meister D. Human Factors: Theory and Practice Copyright 1971, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
- 9. Huchingson R. D. - New Horizons for Human Factors in Design Copyright 1981, McGraw-Hill, Inc.
- 10. McCormick E. J. - Human Factors in Engineering and Design Fourth Edition, Copyright 1970, McGraw-Hill, Inc.
- 11. Woodson W. E. - Human Factors Design Handbook Copyright 1981, McGraw-Hill, Inc.
- 12. NUTAC/INPO - Human Factor Principles for Control Room Design Review, January 1983, Draf t
- 13. NUTAC/INP0 - Control Room Design Review Implementation Guide, January 1983, Draft
- 14. NUTAC/INP0 - Control Room Design Review Surver Development Guide, January 1983, Draft I}}