ML17301A039

Detailed Control Room Design Reviews Program Plan.

ML17301A039
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie, Turkey Point, 05000000
Issue date:	04/30/1983
From:	FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML17301A040	List: ML17301A039 ML17345B098
References
PROC-830430, NUDOCS 8305250491
Download: ML17301A039 (36)

Text

ST. LUCIE UNITS 1 R 2 TURKEY POINT UNITS 3 Bc 4 DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REYIEWS PROGRAM PLAN Prepared By:

Florida Power R Light Co.

April 1983

TABLE OF, CONTENTS

~Pa e 1.0 REVIEW PLAN 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Task Phasing 1-9 2.0 MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING 2.1 Introduction 10 2.2 Management Responsibility 10-10 3.0 DOCUMENTATION AND DOCUMENT CONTROL 3.1 Introduction 15 3.2 Reference Documentation 15 3.3 Process 2 HED documentation 15-20 i

3.0 Detailed Control Room Design Review Report 21 0.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH 0.1 Introduction 22 0.2 Task Plans 22 5.0 ASSESSMENT R IMPLEMENTATION 5.1 Asse'sment 23-27 5.2 Implementation 28-31

LIST OF FIGURES

~pi ure ~Pa e

l. Four Phases and Task Flow/Relationships of the CR Review 2

2. Assessment: Selection of Design Improvements 7 Dctaiicd Control Room Design Review Program Organization 11 Information Management 16

5. Human Engineering Discrepancy Report 18'9

6. Component Reports 7e HED Priority 20 Flow for Correction of HEDS by Enhancement 29

9. Process for Identifying HED Design Alternatives 30

10. HED Backfit Assessment 31 LIST OF TABLES Table ~Pa e 1 Assessment of category and priority as a function of error 27

. assessment and consequences of error

1.0 REVIEW PLAN 1.1 Introduction This Program Plan Report has been prepared in response to NUREG-0700 and details the program for a detailed control room design review to be conducted for the St.'ucie Units 1 dc 2 and the Turkey Point Units 3 dc 0 (Dockets 50-250, 251, 335 and 389).

The outline of this report conforms to paragraph 5.1 of NUREG-0700 published September, 1981.

l. Review Plan

2. Management and Staffing

.3 Documentation and Document Control Technical Approach (Review Procedures)

5. Assessment and Implementation.

Implementation of this program plan meets all the objectives of NUREG-0700, .".nd closely follows the guidance of that document.

1.2 Task Phasing The review is conducted as delineated in four phases, as follows:

Phase 2 - Control Room Review. This represents the period in which data

~

collection, reduction and analysis is conducted, resulting in Human Engineering Discrepancy (HED) reports.

Phase 3. - Enhancement

• Desi n Solutions. Discrepancies are collated, alternate enhancements and design solutions are generated and the results are considered in trade-offs.

phase S ~Re ortin . Results of detailed control room design review with plans for modifications are published.

Figure 1 shows, in general, the phases and task flow for conducting the detailed control room design review. A brief discussion of the activities conducted in each phase of the review follows this figure. For detailed descriptions of the objectives, approach, data reduction and results of specific evaluation methods, refer to Section 0.0 Technical Approach of this review plan.

PHASEIII PHASE IV PHASEI PHASE II ENHANCEMENT AND REVIEW REPORTING PLANNING DESIGN SOLUTIONS SYSTEMS VERIFY REVIEW OPERATIONS FUNCTIONS TASK'ERFOR-EXPERIENCE AND TASK ANALYSIS MANCE CAPABILITY DEV ELOP REPORT IDENTIFY DEVELOP ASSESS AND PROGRAM DISCRE SELECT PLAN PANCIES OPTIONS DEVELOP ASSEMBLE SCHEDULE CONDUCT VALIDATE CONTROL CONTROL CONTROL ROOM ROOM ROOMS DOC UMEN .SURVEYS FUNCTIONS TATION FlGURE 1 The four phases and the task flow/relationships of the Control Room review.

1.2.1 Phase 1 Project Planning This document delineates the project planning. NUREG-0700 and its guidelines form the basis of this document.

1.2.2 Phase 2 Control Room Review The Control Room review phase is divided into seven tasks as foDows:

1. Review of operating experience

2. Assemble Control Room documentation

3. Review of system functions and task analysis

4. Control Room surveys

~

5. Verify task performance capability

~

6. Validate Control Room functions

7. Assess discrepancies 1.2.2.1 Review of Operating Experience This task is composed of two subt&sks:

1) conduct operator interviews, and 2) review of plant operational experience through

'Licensing Event Reports, technical specification modifications, etc. This review task is conducted in accordance with the guidelines of NUREG-0700.

1.2.2.2 Assemble Control Room Documentation In this task, a Control Room data base is established to support the subsequent evaluation. A library is established with Control Room related documentation (Technical Specifications, drawings, etc.),

Control Room components are photoMocumented, and a 1/3 scale photo-mosaic is constructed. The library and photoMocumentation are centrally located to support the

,effort. In addition to the library and photographic documentations, a Control Room inventory of components is developed, identifying for each component, its location, system relationships, functions, and characteristics. Inventory data is filed for subsequent use.

1.2.2.3 Review of System Functions and Task Analysis System functions,and tasks are identified and evaluated in this task. A four step procedure is employed:

o Identification of systems and subsystems by review of plant documen-tation o Identification of event sequences to undergo task analysis, these are identified by:

NUREGs-0737, 0660, 0700 results of operating experience review o Identification of system/subsystem functions through document review and operator interviews

o Identification and analysis of Control Room operational tasks P

Task analysis data is an input for the verification of task performance capability and the validation of Control Room functions (see par agraphs 1.2.2.5 and 1.2.2.6). The results/products of this task are:

Response selection diagrams

2. Task analysis of functional sequences

3. Task analysis of event sequences 4, Spatial-operational sequence diagrams of task sequences

5. Traffic pattern diagr ams.

1.2.2.4 Conduct Control Room Surveys Fourteen surveys will be performed to develop the detailed assessment of the Control Room. Surveys require the collection of data using preconstructed checklists, interview forms, and direct measurements of Control Room parameters such as noise. levels, light levels etc. The guidance for the survey criteria is found in NUREG-0700. For each survey, a draft report (summarizing HEDs) is prepared for subsequent inclusion into a final report. The surveys to be conducted are:

o Noise 'direct measurements of noise levels are taken and compared to individual checklists items.

o Lighting measur ements ar e taken under various ambient conditions (e.g., emergency lighting) and compared to individual checklist items.

o Control Room Environment assessments are made by direct measurement of the parameters listed below and comparison of the data to the NUREG-0700 guidelines Temperature Humidity Ventilation Workspace arrangement Document organization, use and storage Control Room access o Design conventions evaluations of survey for the conventions listed below. Data to be compared to NUREG-0700 guidelines Coding methods (color, shape, pattern, etc.)

Standardization of abbreviations and acronyms Consistency of control use Consistency of display movement or indication o Controls checklist evaluation of controls o Displays checklist evaluation of .displays

o Computers checklist evaluation of computer systems.

o Emergency Garments data to be collected by walk-throughs, use of emergency garments, speech intelligibility analysis, and checklist application.

o Labeling checklist evaluation of labels.

o Annunciators checklist evaluation of annunciator systems.

o Anthropometrics analysis of reach and visual access to Control Room components given physical configuration of boards, panels, work space layout, etc. Data to be compared to checklist item requirements.

o Force/Torque when indicated by operator observation, force/torque infor mation for control types are collected for comparison to checklist items.

o Communications checklist evaluation of communications systems.

Speech intelligibility.analysis of communications modes.

o Maintainability checklist and questionnaire data concerning operator-maintained components (trend recorders, bulbs, etc.).

1.2.2.5 Verify Task Performance Capability This evaluation task involves two

.subtasks: verification of instrument/control availability, and verification of Human Engineering suitability. The first, verification of availability, is conducted using the task analysis and Control Room inventory. In general, tasks associated with Control are examined in terms of appropriate instrumentation in the Control Room (ie.,

Room'unctions task equipment demands vs. actual equipment presence in the Control Room). Once this

. is accomplished, estimates of the frequency-of-use for all instrumentation are generated

.for:

o Startup o Shutdown o Change of reactor power.

Estimations of non~rocedurally bound operations (e.g., boration, etc.) are generated via operator interviews. Also, task sequences required in selected event sequences are estimated as to frequency of occurrence in 'the event sequences. Comparing both frequency and requirements data to the inventory, identification is made of: 1) the r

absence (in the Control Room) of task required information or control, 2) the estimated frequency with, which the information or control is required, and 3) the conditions (events, procedures, etc.) under which the information or control is required. Based on the above, HEDs are identified and documented.

The second subtask, verification of suitability, involves using spatial-operational sequence diagrams, traffic pattern diagrams, identified functional groups, and checklists to evaluate human engineering suitability in terms of sequence of component use, control/display proximity,etc. The NUREGW?00 guidelines serve as the source document for evaluation criteria.

1.2.2.6 Validate Control Room Functions This involves analysis of workload and distribution of workload for operators for specific task and event sequences, and overall Control Room traffic. The means of the analysis are: 1) task timelines, 2) traffic analysis, and 3) walk- and talk-through simulation of task sequences. Checklists will be used to aid in the validation of Control Room functions.

1.2.2.7 Assess Discrepancies Assessment is discussed in Section 5.0 of this plan.

In general, the process'is similar to that discussed in NUREG-0801 (draft, published in October, 1981), and is as follows:

Assess extent of deviation from NUREG-0700 guidelines

2. Estimate increase in human error for the discrepancy

3. Determine if discrepant component(s) perform safety functions 4, Determine if errors in using discrepant component(s) could lead to viohtion of tech specs or lead to unsafe operation 5.. Assignment of category and priority, based on the above.

1.2.3 Phase 3 Enhancement and Design Solutions The logic path to be employed in identifying and selecting enhancements and design solutions is based on NUREG-0700, Exhibit 4-2, as shown in Pigure 2.

1. Analysis of correction by enhancement

2. Analysis of correction by design alternatives

3. Assess extent of correction.

1.2.3.1 Analysis of Correction by Enhancement Discrepancies are first examined for possible correction by enhancement (labeling, demarcation, procedure aids, etc.).

Each HED is considered and where such correction is possible, the discrepancy is reassessed for its effect on operator performance. As appropriate, HEDs are reevaluated via checklisting and task analysis until Human Engineering suitability is verified. Where it is determined that corr ection by enhancement is not possible, the discrepancy is analyzed for correction by design alternatives.'

HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCIES TO BE ANALYZED FOR CORRECTION (FROM THE HED SELECTION PROCESS)

ANALYSIS FOR CORRECTION BY ENHANCEMENT CORRECT WITH YES ENHANCEMENT?

DESIGN AND VERIFY ANALYSIS TO IDENTIFY DESIGN IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES AND SELECT RECOMMENDED SOLUTION IMPLEMENT AND DOCUMENT FUNCTION ANALYSIS ALLOCATION MAN MACHINE VERIFY ALLOCATION i

SELECT PREFERRED I

DESIGN ALTERNATIVE i

VALIDATE DESIGN-I

~b SCHEDULE

+o IMPLEMENTATION

~O JUSTIFY AND ASSESS EXTENT OF CORRECTION DOCUMENT DOCUMENT, Partially Corrected JUSTIFY AND SCHEDULE DOCUMENT DOCUMENT IMPLEMENTATION FIGURE 2 ASSESSMENT: SELECTION OF DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS (FROM NUREG 0700)

1.2.3.2 Analysis of Correction'y Design Alternative Identification of design alternatives will be achieved by the examination of the HED, reference to task analysis data, and identification of potential constraints (e.g., availability of equipment, Reg. Guide 1.75, etc.). The acceptability of design alternatives will be verified by further evaluation using the foDowing:

o Functional analysis o Task analysis o Reapplication of survey guidelines.

1.2.3.3 Assess Extent of Correction During the Human Engineering meetings, enhancement and/or redesign corrections will be selected, assessed, and noted in Section G "Disposition" of the HED report shown in Figure 5.

1.2.4 Phase 4 Reporting Two requirements of this phase are 1) preparation of schedules for implementation of selected backfits, and 2) preparation and submittal of the final report.

1.2.4.1 Develop Backfit Schedules Backfit schedules will be proposed as HEDs are identified, documented, and assessed. Scheduling of HED backfits will be a function of:

o HED category and 'priority o Engineering and procurement lead time requir ements and constraints o Overall plant outage schedules.

Schedules willbe reviewed and updated as part of the implementation program.

1.2.4.2 Develop Final Report The detailed control room design review report will closely follow the outline recommended in Section 5.2 of NUREG-0700.

Specifically, the final report will address:

o The detailed control room design review phases o The technical activities

- 'eview of operating experience Assembly of Control Room documentation System/function/task analysis

'Conduct of Control Room surveys Verification of task performance capability Validation of Control Room functions o Method of assessment of discrepancies o Method of identification and selection of enhancement and design solutions o Review results of HEDs, HED assessment, and the selected enhancement and design solutions willbe organized into the following groups:

Survey findings (annunciator, communications, etc.)

Task analysis findings (panel/workspace)

Human engineering suitability and validation of functions findings (Control Room traffic, workload distribution, man/machine functional allocations) o Improvements to be made Enhancements/justification/extent of correction Design alternative/justification/extent of correction o Schedule of implementation.

2.0 MANAGEMENT8c STAFFING 2.1 Introduction This section details the 1) management responsibility of the detailed control

,room design review and 2) HED review team structure and management.

Figure 3 shows the detailed control room design review and HED review organizations for the St. Lucie 1 and 2 and Turkey Point 3 8 4 Nuclear Power Plants. Responsibilities and team member qualifications are discussed below.

2.2 Management Responsibility 2.2.1 The Human Engineering Program Manager is the Florida Power and Light Company designated representative who has the overall responsibility for the admin-istiation of the Detailed Control Room Design Review program. His responsibilities include but are not limited to:

A. The overaD administration of the Detailed Control Room Design Review of FPRL's Nuclear Generating Units located at the St. Lucie and Turkey Point sites.

B. Administering vendor contracts associated with the performance of the Detailed Control Room Design Review.

C. Integrating and coordinating other human factors programs as described in other NRC publications; for. example:

1. NRC Task Action Plan NUREG-0660 and NUREG-0737

2. Aspects of the TMI-related requirements for ne'w operating Licenses, NUREGO694

3. Functional Criteria for Emergency Response Facilities, NUREGO696

4. Implementation of Regulatory Guide 1.97

5. Human Factors Acceptance Criteria for the Safety Parameter Display System, Draft NUREGO835.

D. Coordinate and develop the necessary adminstrative controls to support the organization controls of an implementation program.

The Human Engineering program manager will have a bachelor's degree in an engineering discipline or equivalent experience and a minimum of 3 years exper ience in a managerial role. Also a minimum of 5 years of applied design or operating experience in power plants and/or process control application in complex commercial, industrial or military facilities and systems is desirable.

"10"

HUMAN ENGINEERING

- PROGRAM MANAGER HUMAN FACTORS TASK TEAM COORDINATOR ST. LUCIE UNIT HUMAN ENGINEERING I ST. LUCIE UNIT 2 TURKEY POINT UNITS l82

~

HUMAN ENGINEERING ENGINEERING DISCRE PANCY DISCREPANCY REVIEW TEAM REVIEN TEAM I. CHAIRMAN I. CHAIRMAN I. CHAIRMAN

2. HUMAN FACTORS CONSULTANT 2. HUMAN FACTORS CONSULTANT 2. HUMAN FACTORS CONSULTANT REVIE%. TEAM SITE MANAGER REVIDIt TEAM SITE MANAGER REVIEN TEAM SITE MANAGER

3. REACTOR OPERATOR 3. REACTOR OPERATOR 3. REACTOR OPER%1 OR

4. INSTRUMENTATION 8 CONTROL 4.'INSTRUMENTATION 8 CONTROL 4.INSTRUMENTATON 8 CONTROL ENGINEER ENGINEER ENSNEER

5. HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING 5. HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING 5.HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING IMPLEMENTATION COORDINATOR IMPLEMENTATION COORDINATOR IMPLEMENTATION COORDINATOR

6. STAFF ENGINEERING 6. STAFF ENGINEERING 6. STAFF ENGINEERING (AS REQUIRED) .

(AS REQUIRED) (AS REQUIRED)

7. EBASCO (AS .REQUIRED) 7. EBASCO (AS REQUIRED) 7.BECHTEL (AS REQUIRED)

FIGURE 3 DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DETAILED REVIEW PROGRAM ORGANIZATION

2.2.2 The Human Factors Task Team Coordinator r eports directly to the Human Engineering Program Manager. The Human Factors Task Team Coordinator is responsible for directing and coordinating the necessary personnel, task teams and review groups required to support the Detailed Control Room Design Review effort. The human factors task team coordinator also presides over the HED review team. This arrangement of administrative responsibility allows the Detailed Control Room Design Review Management Team to quickly evaluate project priorities, assignment of specialized key personnel based on the overall project schedule, as well as consistency of program philosophy between sister units. The assessment and disposition of HED's will be addressed in Section 2.2.3.

The Human Factors Task Team Coordinator will have a bachelor's degree in an engineering discipline or equivalent experience. Also a minimum of 5 years of applied design or operating experience in power plants and/or process control applications in complex commercial, industrial or military facilities and systems is desirable.

2.2.3 HED Review Team Structure and Management The HED review te'am is comprised of a minimum of four members, as follows:

2.2.3.1 Chairman The HED review team chairman is responsible for coordinating the HED review team effort. The chairman interfaces with the designated site operations I

representatives to arrange for review 'team access to:- plant information (records, documents, plans, procedures, drawings, etc.), required facilities (control room computers, word processing, cameras/YTR, etc.) and.personnel with useful or necessary information (reactor operators, equipment designers or planners, or utility management).

The HED review team chairman presides over the HED review team meetings and coordinates the necessary personnel and resources required to support:he as::.essment, disposition and recommended backfits for HED's submitted to the team for review by the contracted Human Factors consultant. The HED review team Chairman is responsible for signing the disposition block and signifying HED review team concurrence or dissenting opinion. The HED's are then reviewed for engineering scope, material requirements and implementation schedule. The proposed implementation schedule will then be incorporated into the detailed control room design review findings section of the final report.

The HED review team chairman will have a bachelor's degree in an engineering discipline or equivalent experience. A minimum of 5 years of applied design or operating experience in power plants and/or process control applications in complex commercial, industrial or military facilities and systems is desirable.

2.2.3.2 Human Factors Consultant Review Team Site Manager The Human Factors Consultant Review Team Site Manager is responsible for directing the Detailed Control Room Design Review effort on site in accordance with the agreed upon contractual scope between Florida Power and Light Company and Essex Corporation (the Human Factors consulting company hired to perform the Control Room Review). The Human Factors Consultant Review Team Site Manager reports directly to the Human Factors Task Team Coordinator and is also a member of the HED Review Team. The Human Factors Consultant Review Team Site Manager is responsible for directing and managing the on~ite Essex Corporation review effort as well as providing input to help formulate assessment, disposition and recommended backfits for HED's addressed during the HED Review Team meetings. The Human Factors Consultant Review Team Site Manager also provides assistance in overall project planning and technical leadership.

The Human Factors Consultant Review Team Site Manager will have five years of applied human factors engineering experience relative to system design, including two years in Nuclear Power Plant control room human factors engineering, testing and evaluation. In addition, academic and professional experience in the following areas will apply:

o Human Factors Engineering/Ergonomics o Sensory/Perceptual Processes o Experimental design and statistical analysis o Anthropometrics o Survey analysis and other data collection methods o Human performance theory.

2.2.3.3 Reactor Operator At least one Reactor Operator will be a member of the HED Review Team. The Reactor Operator will provide operational input to help formulate assessments, dispositions and recommended backfits for HED's addressed during the HED Review Team meetings. A Reactor Operator will also be available to assist the Human Factors Consultant Review Team dur ing,their DCRDR e'ffort.

The reactor operators assigned to support the HED Review Team effort will have a minimum of two years operating experience in a control room similar to the one being reviewed.

2.2.3.4 Instrumentation and Control Engineer An Instrumentation and Control (IRC) Engineer will be a member of the HED Review Team as the need arises. The IRC I

Engineer will provide input to the team with regard to regulations, standards and design constraints that have an impact on nuclear power plant control room design as well as help formulate assessments, dispositions and recommended backfits for HEDs addressed during the HED Review Team meetings.

The IRC engineer wiQ have a bachelor's degree in engineering or equivalent along with a minimum of five years of applied experience. Most of this experience should have been gained in the nuclear field; however, previous experience. in power plants or other process control applications involving complex commercial, industrial, or military facilities and systems willbe considered acceptable.

2.2.3.5 Other Discipline Representatives As the need arises other discipline representatives from various organizations such as the Architect Engineer, Nuclear Steam Supplier and/or utility may.be required to support the HED Review team effort.

These individuals should have a bachelor's degree or equivalent in a course of study relevant to the specific discipline and a minimum of three years of applied design of operating technical experience. Previous experience in power 'plants or other process .

control applications in complex commercial, industrial, or military facilities a'nd systems will be considered acceptable.

"14-

3.0 DOCUMENTATION AND DOCUMENT CONTROL 3.1 Introduction Three . types of. documentation will be addressed; 1) reference documentation, 2) process and HED documentation, and, 3) Detailed Control Room Design Review output findings and reports.

3.2 Reference Documentation A program library will be established with reference documents to support the Detailed Control Room Design Review tasks. This willcontain:

o Liscensee Event Reports o Outage Analysis Reports o FSAR o Technical Specifications and system descriptions o Piping and instrumentation drawings o Floor plans o Panel drawings and photographs o Software descriptions o- Procedures o Samples of computer printouts o Various NRC and industry documents bearing on Control Room design (NUREG-0660, NUREG<770, IEEE standards, human factor texts, etc.)

As needed, these will be referenced to support specific tasks within the Control Room evaluations.

3.3 Process R HED Documentation 3.3.1 Process The means by which data collection and reduction takes place will be documented for reporting purposes. The general flow of information management is presented in Figure 4. The individual task plans presented in Section 4.0 Technical Approach, will serve as the basic process documentation. -.Where-deviations from the guidance in these tasks plans occur in the conduct of evaluations, task plans wiD be modified to reflect accurate data collection procedure.

"15-

~,

FlGURE 4 INFORINATION MANAGEMENT DATA COLLECTION DATA COLLECTION DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE 1 PROCEDURE 2 PROCEDURE N COLLECT DATA COLLECT DATA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ COLLECT DATA IDENTIFY HEDs IDENTIFY HEDs ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ IDENTIFY HEDs DOCUMENT DOCUMENT ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DOCUMENT FILE {MANUAL FILE(MANUAL FILE (MANUAL

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

& ADP) & ADP) Ec ADP)

ASSESS HEDs UPDATE FILES

.(MANUAL8c ADP)

IDENTIFY RESOLUTIONS UPDATE FILES (MANUALEc ADP)

DEVELOP SCHEDULES RESOLUTIONS REPORT

3.3.2 Guideline HED Data files for each task will be generated. Por each task requiring a report, file space willbe reserved for that report. HED information will, be stored in a computer file which willcontain the following information:

o Guideline number which also serves as the HED number o HED description o HED assessment o HED locations (item types which are discrepant from the survey guidelines) o Action to be taken on the HED.

The Human Engineering Descrepancy Report to be used is presented in Pigure 5.

3.3.3 Component HED Reports A manually maintained file will be established which documents, for each com-

'ponent, all HEDs cited for that component. In addition, the heading for each component

. HED contains the following Control Room inventory information:

o Panel/Workstation o Unique location code o System relationship o Component function and use o Component type and character istics.

The HEDs noted against a component where appropriate, are listed on the bottom of the form, by HED number (which corresponds to NUREG-0700 guideline number ). The Component Level form used is presented in Pigure 6.

3.3.4 Task Reports Por each plan in Section 4.0, a separate report section willbe generated, detailing:

o Objectives of the task plan o The actual data coDection and analysis methods employed o The criteria (guidelines) implemented o Summary of findings.

In short, the process followed for each survey or evaluation from inception.to writing of HEDs, will be included in task reports.

FIGURE 5 HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY REPORT NO: PLANT.UNIT: DATE:

REVIEWER NAME:

0) KED TITLE:

b) ITEMS INVOLVED:

ITEM TYPE NOMENCLATURE LOCATION PHOTO NO.

c) PROBLEM DESCRIPTION {GUIDELINESVIOLATED):

d} SPECIFIC OPERATOR ERROR(S) THAT COULD RESULT FROM HED:

18

FIGURE 5 (contInued) y),SUGGESTIONS FOR OTENTIAL BACKFITS DATA COLLECTOR DATE DATA COLLECTION MGR DATE PROGRAM MGR DATE g) DISPOSITION 0 FURTHER I'.EVIEW BY DATE 0 TO BE CORRECTED BY DATE REFER TO OPERATIONS 0 NO ACTION 0 OTHER EVALUATION COMPLETED FPL PROJECT DIRECTOR DATE

,19

'FIGURE 6

~ COMPONENT REPORl HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY REPORT COMI'OIEITII)LAIEL ASSDClATED EOtIPllEIT OfCICIATlDI i LIIE 'f ~ AIEl UIE 2 LNE i SUBSYSTEM: CONTROL MODESIDISPLAY RANGE:

USE:

HED NUMBER CAT HED NUMBER 20

3.4 Detailed Control Room Design Review Report This report is prepared at the conclusion of the Detailed Control Room Design Review and consists primarily of the process and HED reports previously prepared. The following format willbe used:

1.0 Methodology 1.1 'verview Review Plan 1.2 Management and Staffing 1.3 Documentation 1.4 Review procedures employed a),Operating experience review and results summary b) Systems, functions, and task analysis c) Surveys of Control Room equipment o Controls o Displays o Validation of Control Room Functions 1.5 Assessment procedur es

2.0 Findings

2.1 .Survey finding 2.2 System functions task analysis findings 3.0 Implementation 3.1 Completed improvements 3.2 Proposed improvements "21-

E.

4.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH 4.1 Introduction The technical approach (review procedures) to be employed is discussed in this section. Task plans are provided which describe the activities for the following tasks:

Review of operating experience Assembly of Control Room documentation Review of system functions and task analysis 0 Surveys (one task plan for each) noise lighting Control Room environment design conventions controls displa'ys computers emergency garments labeling annunciators anthr opometrics force/torque communications maintainability Verification of task per formance capability Validation of Control Room functions o Assessment of discr epancies.

4.2 Task Plan Content Each task plan addresses:

variables under analysis.

f i Review Team The personnel required to conduct the task.

>>f Criteria Generally the survey guidelines appropriate to the task at hand.

Task Definition Steps or procedures to be followed to conduct the task.

E ui ment R uirements 'List of any equipment required to conduct the task.

In ut and Data Forms The data collection forms required by the tasks.

Out uts and Results Task results. Often these are HEDs,'ut may be data

/

which is drawn upon by subsequent tasks'(e.g., task analysis).

5.0 ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION 5.1 Assessment When a HED has been identified, it is assessed for error inducing potential and system 'consequences of induced errors. The assessment determines the scheduling of backfits as a function of the potential consquences of the HED. The HED's will be corrected by enhancement (color coding, labeling, etc.) or design alternatives. The HED correction may affect the originial backfit schedule depending on the availability of materials and extent of engineering redesign. The proposed corrections are assessed to ensur e that HED'a have been adequately addresses.

The basic assessment process is divided into four steps as follows:

o Assess extent of deviation from survey guidelines o Assess HED inpact in error'occurrence o Assess potential consequences of error occurrence o Assign HED scheduling priority.

A diagram for assessment is presented in Figure 7.

5.1.1 Assess Extent of Deviation from Survey Guidelines The step requires that a more or less subjective assessment of .the extent of discrepancy from survey guidelines be made with regard to the Control Room. For example, symbol/background contrast. might be 4096, rather. than 5096, or, only small amounts of parallax may exist in a display. A judgement is made based on the content of the guideline being applied and the Control Room component under assessment. Extent of deviation is then subjectively scaled from 1 (some deviation) to 5 (complete deviation).

There is also a catagory N/A (not applicable) for HEDs which are not a part of NUREG-0700 (discrepancies from other documents such as military standards, HFE Texts, etc).

Extent of deviation judgements are not directly used to assess priority or scheduling of backfits, but relate to assessment of increase operational error potentials. It is possible

'FlGURE 7

~ ~

HED PRIORITY ~

HEDN

1. EXTENT OF DEVIATION N/A SOME COMPLETE FROM 0700 1 2, 3 4 5 GUIDELINES LOW HIGH

2. ERROR ASSESSMENT 'I 2 .3 4 5 3.'SAFETY FUN CTION YES NO

'p

4. NON SAFETY RELATED, YES REQUIRED TO MITIGATE CONSEQUENCES OF AN ACCIDENT

5. CONSEQUENCES OF ERROR OCCURENCE UNSAFE OPERATION YES NO B. VIOLATION YES OF TECH.

SPECS.

YES

1. DEV ~ 0? CATEGORY III HED

2. ERROR ASSESSMENT CATEGORY III HED 02 TA TA.

YES TECH TECH 3.'SAFETY SPEC VIO CATEGORY SPEC VIO. YES N N CATEGORY LATED OR UN. FUNCTION OR LATED PR UN.

II C HED ~

OBJECTIVE 'SAFE OPERATION SAFE OPERATION

?  ?

YES YES CATEGORY II A CATEGORY II B HED HED 24

~

~ ~ ~

to have little deviation from the survey guidelines and high error assessments, and vise versa, but the two will probably be positively correlated. Extent of deviation will not be used to assess errors induced by HEDs.

5'.1.2 Assess HED Impact on Error Occurrence Given that no control system can be designed to be operationally error-free, assessment here is to estimate HED impact on hypothetical (unknown) baseline error rates of control room componentai e.g., will additional errors bo inducod by discrepancies from the guidelines? Estimates of HED impact on error occurrence are qualitatively arrived at by consideration of the following:

o Body physiology Fatigue/physical stress Discomfort Injury Anthropometry o Sensory/perceptual perfoi mance Vision Au'dition Propioception Touch o Information processing Overload Confusion Recall P at tern matching/recognition Data manipulation (comparing, extrapolating, etc.)

o Learning Inhibition Habituation Response predominance Transfer Response competition Response latency o,Task Demands Frequency Duration Competition Sequence Speed Communication Precision Information

~ ~ ~ <, )

~

~

'I ~

' I, 5.1.3 Assess Potential Consequences of Error Occurrence Review Team technical staff and operations representatives evaluate system consequences of hypothesized operational errors. Four determinations are required:

1. Does the HED relate to plant safety functions?

2. Does the HED relate to plant functions required to mitigate the consequences of an accident?

3. Could an error lead to unsafe operations or plant conditions?

4. Could an error lead to violations of Technical Specifications?

Each of these require a yes/no type response. The logic diagram on Figure 7 (HED Priority) shows how these data are integrated to assign categories and priorities to HEDs.

Table 1 shows the breakdown of category and priority as a function of error assessment and consequences of error.

Note that Category I HEDs are those which have been noted from documented operational errors. All Category I,HEDs are deemed to increase error potential, but consequences must still be assigned to determine ultimate scheduling priority.

Assessment of error occurrence is estimated for the following:

1. Overall operator performance. is/is not.degraded by HED impact on body physiology?

. 2. HED does/does not degrade sensory performance?

3. Information processing capability is/is not exceeded via the HED?

4; . The HED does/does not induce direct error due to principles of learning?

5. Task difficulty and reliability is/is not affected by the HED.

Based on the above, a subjective error assessment is generated on a 5- point scale, a one meaning a low.probability of induced errors is expected as a result of the HED, a five indicating a high probability level of additional errors being induced.

5.1.4 Assign HED Priority Scheduling Priority for scheduling of backfit purposes is per the following:

Priority A Prompt First outage, given availability of materials and engineering load time.

Priority B Near Term Second refueling outage given availability of parts and engineering lead time.

Priority C - Long Term At any time.

"26-

I

~ j I

TABLE I ASSESMENT OF CATEGORY AND HUOKITY AS A FUNCTION OF ERROR ASSESSMENT AND CONSEQUENCES OF ERROR Req'd Lead to Lead to Documented Dev iation Error Safety Mitigate Unsafe Tech. Spec Errors? from 0700 Assessment -

Function Accident Operation Violation C~ata or ~Priori Yes >2 Yes or Yes Yes or Yes A:

Yes >2 No No Yes

>2 Yes/No Yes/No No No No >2 Yes or Yes Yes or Yes No >2 No No or Yes No <2 Yes/No Yes/No No No No N/A <3 Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No N/A

\

5.2 Implementation Implementation is discussed in three parts, as follows:

Analysis for Correction by Enhancement/assess correction 0 Analysis of Design Alternatives/assess correction

-Scheduling and Implementation each of these is discussed, in turn, below.

5.2.1 Analysis for Correction by Enhancement In this task each HED is considered for correction by enhancement.. Many, e.g.,

labeling HEDs, are immediately and fully corrected. For other HEDs, enhancement solutions may only partially ameliorate the discrepancy..Figure 8, shows the process for

~

identifying HEDs to be corrected by enhancement (color coding, labeling, demarcation,

'tc,)

5.2.2 Analysis for Correction by Design Alternatives This task requires that each HED selected for analysis of design alternatives undergo Task and Functions analysis review. The basic procedure employed is. shown in Figure 9. Note that where design alternatives do not exist, HEDs are again considered for correction by enhancement, since some mitigation of the error inducement may be achievable.

5.2.3 ScheduIing and Implementation HEDs selected for correction by enhancement will undergo ir<<pie.aentation scheduling. Longer term corrections will be scheduled and the schedule reported to the NRC for teview and approvaL Figure 10 shows the form which. will document the results of the HED reassessment of alternative enhancements and/or design solutions. Reassessments will be performed where original corrections could not be implemented due to conflicts in required

.operational function, availability of qualified equipment, and/or space requirements;

FIGURE 8 FLOW FOR CORRECTION OF HEDs BY ENHANCEMENT HEDs NOTES:

CONSIDER ENHANCEMENT Using photomosalc ALTERNATIVES REEVALUATE Using 0700 guidelines HED HED YES RESOLVED

'?

PROCESS using NUREG 0801 and 0700 ERROR YES ASSESSMENT

~2 NO .

HED SELECTED FOR CORRECTION BY DESIGN ALTERNATIVES DETAILED ENHANCEMENT Detailed design proceeds,using DESIGN,IMPLE. 0700 guidelines where appropriate, MENTATION AND as design requirements DOCUMENTATION 29

~ I j ~

~ ~

FIGURE 9 PROCESS FOR ANALYZINGHED DESIGN ALTERNATIVES HED REVIEW SYSTEMS, FUNCTIONS AND TASK, ANALYSIS IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVES EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES NO HED NO YES ENHANCEMENT YES RESOLVED ALTERNATIVES 8OL.UTIONS

? EXHAUSTED POSSIBL

?

YES NO JUSTIFY 5 NEW DOCUMENT YES HEDs INTRODUCED

?

NO DESIGN FEASIBLE NO (ENGINEERING)

?

YES SCHEDULE IMPLEMENT DOCUMENT

jV

~

FIGURE 10 HED NO. HED BACKFIT ASSESSMENT PROPOSED IMPLEMENTED BACKFIT BACKFIT IENHANCEMENT a) LABELING a) b) DEMARCATION b) c) CODING c) d) PROCEDURES d) e) TRAINING e)

II DESIGN ALTERNATIVES a) RELOCATION a) b) REPLACEMENT b) c) CONFORMANCE TO PROCESS CONVENTION c) d) RELOCTION OF FUNCTION d)

REASSESSMENT OF PROBABLE ERROR AND DEVIATION

1. EXTENT OF DEVIATION N/A SOME COMPLETE FROM 0700 G UIDEL'INES. 3 4

2. ERROR ASSESSMENT LOW HIGH 5

YES 1 DEV ~0? RESOLVED SIGNOFF: HEPM NO DATE:

2. ERROR NO ASSESSMENT RESOLVED 3>

REDESIGN BACKflT 31

'A44l

~ 'j 4 0 I