ML20081F932

Control Room Design Review Program Plan Rept for VC Summer Nuclear Station

ML20081F932
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	11/01/1983
From:	SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20081F913	List: ML20081F907 ML20081F932
References
RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.D.1, TASK-TM GL-82-33, PROC-831101, NUDOCS 8311040039
Download: ML20081F932 (86)

Text

.

J CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM PLAN REPORT FOR TFE VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION Prepared For:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Prepared By:

, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company November 1,1983 8311040039 831028 PDR ADOCK 05000395 F PDR t

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 . Objectives 3 2.0 REVIEW PLAN 4 2.1 Tack Phasing 4 2.2 Schedule 17 2.3 Integration 19 3.0 MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING 21 3.1- Introduction 21 3.2 Management Responsibility 21 3.3 Evaluation Team Structure and Management 22 4.0 DOCUMENTATION AND DOCUMENT CONTROL 25 '

' 4.1 Introduction 25 4.2 Reference Documentation 25 4.3 Process and HED Documentation 26 4.4 CRDR Findings and Report 29 5.0 TECHNICAL APPR'OACH 31 5.1 ' Introduction 31 5.2 Task Plans 31 6.0 ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION 35

\

6.1 Assessment of HEDs 35 6.2 Implementation 41 6.3.. Follow-up Programs 41 6.4 Summary- 41 APPENDICES A . Human Factors Project Staff Resumes B Operational / Engineering Support Resumes of Key Personnel I

r i

)

l LIST OF FIGURES Page Preliminary Evaluation of.the V. C. Summer Control Room 2 1._

2.- The Phases and Task Flow Relationships of the CR Design Review 5

3. The Tasks and Subtask Flow Relationships of the CR Review (Phase II) 7

4. Selection of Design Improvements 14

5. Flow' for Correction of HEDs by Enhancement 15

- 6. Process of Analyzing HED Design Alternatives 16

7. Estimated CRDR Milestone Schedule 18

8. Plant Specific Program for Integrating Requirements for Emergency Response Capability 20

. 9. Information Management Flow - 27

10. _ The Human Engineering Discrepancy (HED) Report 28' HED Priority Record 39

11. -

12.~ HED Backfit Assessment and Implementation Form 42 LIST OF TABLES CRDR Final Report Contents 29 1.

31

2. - Task Plans

3. Assessment of Significance as a Function of Error Consequence and Error Impact 40 LIST OF EXHIBITS i-

1. . _ Sample Items for Assessment of HED Impact on Error Occurrence 37 11

~.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

s

-1.1 - Background

~

This Program Plan Report has been prepared in response to NUREG-0737 paragraph I.D.1:and Generic Letter No. 82-33 Section 5.2 paragraph a. This report details the .

program for the Control Room Design Review (CRDR) to be conducted by South Carolina

. Electric and Gas Company (SCE&G) in conjunction with Essex Corporation for the Virgil

C. Summer Nuclear Station.'

SCE&G first contracted . with Essex .. Corporation over three years ago for a pr'e liminary human factors engineering (HFE) evaluation of the V. C. Summer control room (CR). ~On August 6,1980, Essex submitted their report of the preliminary HFE

review. Shortly thereafter (August 25 through 29, 1980), the Nuclear Regulatory

.-Commission (NRC) performed an HFE audit of the V. C. Summer CR. Both reports cited a number of discrepancies and categorized the discrepancies on a criticality scale U . reflecting potential safety implications.

t On October 22, 1980, representatives of SCE&G and Essex Corporation met with

. NRC,HFE Branch personnel to ' discuss the specific discrepancies identified in the NRC

.- audit.- ' At this meeting SCE&G presented a draft plan for resolving the discrepancies h identified by both the NRC audit and the Essex preliminary evaluation. Subsequently, an approach was n adopted to .: resolve. the HFE discrepancies identified during the two evaluations and satisfy the comprehensive review requirements of NUREG-0660. This

_ plan is presented graphically in Figure 1, and is described in detail in the HFE Program Plan for the preliminary evaluation and improvement of.the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station

~ UR,' dated N'ovember 10,1980.

The' initial' effort addressed the resolution of each discrepancy considered to be of

~ high priority by the NRC or Essex.' On January 15,1981, a report prepared by Essex with-SCE&G' input and approval was presented to the NRC. The report outlined backfits selected by Essex and SCE&G for resolution of the previously identified HFE discre-

' pancies. . - The backfits selected and the scheduling of backfit implementation were

-. approved by the NRC, and are described in a second report dated March 31, 1982. All l _

backfits have been completed.

L The remaining effort is described in this Program Plan Report, which summarizes SCE&G's selected approach for satisfying the comprehensive evaluation of the CR as L

l m

1 l-

l LI CONTROL

• IMPROVEMENTS

ESSEX NRC AUDIT REPORT REPORTS M.

I , DISPLAY ,

b REVIEW yyg,Hg DISCUSSION WITH NRC r AS REQUIRED ON R W RTS d QUESTION AREAS

• ARRANGEMENT.

• REPORT TO NRC IMPROVEMENTS FOR SER SbPPLEMENT _

PLANT DATA y

{ i r  %  : LABELING  % U CR 4

CR PROBLEMS # CHANGES 3,

J iMeROvEMENTS g BACKFIT g IMPROVEMENTS COMPLETE ALREADY IDENTIFIED  % TASK e RECOMMENDATIONS  % + BACKFIT

? IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS g REVIEW

! ,g ,g , ANNUNCIATOR ,

IMPROVEMENTS FINAL REPORTS '

If  ;

~

. CR M sygyggg

. IMPROVEMENT

• MONITOR LIGHTl

• PLAN IMPROVEMENTS

.l 1 e a a -

PLANT DATA l gal CONCEPTS l _

d CR t

NUREG4000 _l  % ARRANGEMENTt %

j SRO CONSOLE CONCEPT 51 -

ENVIRONMENT NUREG-1500 IMPROVEMENTS OPERATING-EMERGENCY a

3 , PROCEDURES _

PROCEDURES _

IMPROVEMENTS I

l FIGURE 1. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE V.C. SUMMER CONTROL ROOM.

i 1

i  ;

w i

. 1 required by NUREG-0660 and Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737. ;The outline of this report l follows that recommended by NUREG-0700 (September,1981), paragraph 5.1, as follows ,

I o Review Plan o ' Management and Staffing

o

. Documentation and Document Control o Technical Approach o Assessment and Implementation. .

Implementation of this Program -Plan meets the objectives of human factors engineering preferred practice and ensures that the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station CR and remote shutdown panels will support operation during emergency conditions.

1.2 ~ Objectives To ensure that the control room design review fulfills its purpose, several objectives

-will be met during the review. The following specific objectives are defined for the

' CRDR:

.o To perform a CR survey that compares the existing CR design with accepted HFE criteria.

o To review relevant plant operational experience using appropriate

-documentation and operator interviews.

o To identify human engineering discrepancies (HEDs).

o To determine the significance of any identified discrepancies.

o - To formulate and implement backfits for significant discrepancies, or provide justification for discrepancies not fully corrected.

o To- ensure that the backfits or proposed resolutions do, in fact, eliminate or mitigate the discrepancies for which they are formu-lated.

o To formulate programs required to maintain the CR design within accepted HFE criteria.

s i

l' 3

2.0 REVIEW PLAN 2.1. . Task Phasing .

.To achieve the stated objectives of the CRDR, review activities will be divided into

. four phases. A flow chart depicting the general flow of review activities is presented in

-Figure 2. This flow chart is not intended to show the actual scheduling of each activity, but rather the interrelationships of the information needed and obtained for each activity.

The four phases include:

Phase 1 - Project Planning. Final acceptance of this Program Plan culmi-nates the planning phase.

Phase 2 . CR Review. This represents the period in which data collection, reduction and analysis is conducted, resulting in human engi-neering discrepancy (HED) reports and draft reports.

Phase 3 - Enhancement & Design Solutions. Discrepancies are collated, alternate enhancements and design solutions are generated, and the results are considered in trade-offs.

Phase 4 -- Reporting. CRDR results are provided to the NRC.

A summary of the activities conducted in each phr.ae of the review is contained in subsequent paragraphs.

2.1.1 Phase I - Project Planning This Program Plan Report summarizes SCE&G's selected approach to the CRDR process. The report describes the overall review plan, the management and review staff,

-documentation and document control, review procedures and methodology, and procedures

for assessing human engineering discrepancies and selecting design improvements.

Guidance for' the CRDR has been provided by the NRC in the form of various NUREGs and Regulatory Guides. While NUREG-0700 and its guidelines form the basis of this document, the review process will consider other principles of human factors engineering which support existing. HFE criteria, or clarify vague, conflicting, or unquantifiable guidelines. Acceptance of this document essentially concludes project .

! planning.

l l

l 4

I 1

I <

' PH m

p PHASEil  ; 4 ASSE

' N AND 3 4 R PORING PLANNING MEN MLUTONS l

l l 1I i.

SYSTEM REVIEW TASK EU T I

+ , OPERATING + AND TEK + PERFOR-i EXPERIENCE gyggygig - MANCE 1

. CAPASILITY J

A w If

' > ANALYZE

-ASSESS AND DEVELOP l DEVELOP PROGRAM 4

" DISCREP-ANCIES

+ SELECT CORRECTIVE

+ FINAL REPORT 6

PLAN y ACTION h

i ASSEM8LE CONDUCT VALIDATE CONTROL CONTROL CONTROL 4 ROOM 4 ROOM + ROOM DOCUMEN- SURVEYS FUNCTONS

{

TATION 1

b -

h i

l i

FIGURE 2. THE PHASES AND TASK FLOW RELATIONSHIPS OF THE CR DESIGN REVIEW

)

1 h

4

2.1.2. Phase II - CR Review As shown in Figure 2, the CR Review phase is subdivided into seven tasks as follows:

1. Operating Experier:ce Revi'ew

2. Assembly of CR Documentation

3. Review of Systems Functions and Analysis of Operator Tasks

4. CR Survey 5.~ Verification of Task Performance Capabilities

6. Validation of CR Functions

7. Discrepancy Assessment.

Each task may be further subdivided into subtasks, and this relationship is shown in Figure 3.

2.1.2.1 . Task 1 - Operating Experience Review - The Operating Experience

' Review will be performed to identify any operational problems resulting from design deficiencies. The task involves the conduct of three separate subtasks: an examination of

. plant-specific documents, a backfit implementation review, and a survey of operating personnel. Existing documentation of operating difficulties, including Off-Normal Occur-rence Reports and associated LERs, will be reviewed. The results of this review will be confirmed in structured interviews with operations personnel. A review of backfits Implemented as a result of the preliminary CR review will be conducted. The results from this review will serve as primary input to the personnel survey. Interviews will be conducted to identify any. problems which operators recognize to currently exist in the CR, and to assess the efficacy of the backfits which were implemented during the HFE enhancement study administered between January 1981 and March 1982. The survey will include a representative sample of operations personnel, including shift supervisors, CR foremen, CR operators and shift technical advisors, as appropriate.

2.1.2.2 Task 2 -' Assembly of CR Documenttion - In this task, a CR data base is established to support the subsequent evaluation. This task is composed of two subtasks:

the development of a program library, and an inventory of CR equipment and instrurren-tatic q.

In order to facilitate the CRDR, a centrally located program library will be developed. The library will consist essentially of two classes of information: plant-specific documentation and human factors literature. The plant-specific references vyill include material such as panel layout drawings, piping and instrumentation diagrams, and preliminary CR assessment / audit findings. The human factors references will consist of 6

---

.---.__-------------.-------,------,---.---__.-----------.---.g__.--- , _

g TASK 1 TASK 2 . TASK 3 TASK 4 TASK 5 TASK 6 .. TASK 7

OPERATING  : : ASSEMBLY OF -+- + REVIEW 0F SYSTEMS : c CR  : : VERIFICATION OF  :  : VAll0ATION OF  : : DISCREPANCY +

EXPERIENCE CR OOCUMENTATION FUNCTIONS AND ANALYSIS SURVEY TASK PERFORMANCE CR FUNCTIONS ASSESSMENT - g REVIEW 0F OPERATOR TASKS CAPABILITIES I

EXAMINE I -

AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS ESTABLISH VERIFY

.- PROGRAM - -*- AVAILABILITY -

LIBRARY l

SYSTEM SURVEY Cli COMPlLE ALL FUNCTION REVIEW FOR ACCEPTANCE WALK THROUGHI HEDsFOR

-*O -* AND TASK T TO HFE PRINCIPLES -* - ~*

TALK THROUGH 7P SIGlWFICANCE i ANALYSIS AND GUIDELINES ASSESSMENT j SURVEY 4 OPERATING -

i PERSONNEL EQUIPMENT VERIFY

• INVENTORY SUITABILITY d6 1

i BACKFIT i IMPLEMENTATION l REVIEW FROM -

PRELIMINARY CR i EVALUATION i

FIGURE 3. THE TASKS AND SUBTASK FLOW RELATIONSHIP OF THE CR REVIEW (PHASE 11) i i

. both generic!HFE guidelines and industry-related literature. The library is expected to contribute'toward a significantly better understanding of the V. C. Summer CR while providing reference material that may be useful in clarifying human factors concerns.

A CR-Inventory -has already been done for the ~V. C. Summer CR by Gilbert Cc,mmonwealth (A.E.), thus eliminating the need to compile such an inventory during the CRDR. - The completed inventory will be placed in the project library to be used during

. later tasks.

2.1.2.3- Task 3 -~ Review of Systems Functions and Analysis of Operator Tasu -

Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 (Generic Letter 82-33) specifies that the system review and' task analysis (SRTA) which was used to develop emergency operating procedures (EOP) techni::al guidelines, should be used to satisfy the requirement of the function and task analysis used in identifying CR operator tasks and information/ control requirements

~

during emergency operations. Since EOPs at the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station will be

~ based upon the Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG) Emergency Responce Guidelines (ERG),

SCE&G is using the generic ERG SRTA in fulfillment of the function and task analyses

required by Supplement 1.

2.1.2.4 Task 4 - CR Survey- Much of the detailed assessment of the control room is conducted via surveys. The CR Survey is a systematic evaluation cf control room

-design features' as they relate to preferred human engineering design practices. -While

.much of the information relative to the CR Survey has already been obtained, formal checklists .and interview forms have not yet been applied. In this task, a total of 13 surveys will be conducted. The data collection process.will entail the use of precon-structed checklists, interview forms, and direct observation and measurement techniques.

The CR Survey will be performed taking into consideration the scope of all modifications resulting from the previous HFE evaluation. Any HEDs will be evaluated with deficien-cles ' identified from other programs (e.g., EOPs, SPDS, ~ PAM instrumentation) in a program for integration of all CR elements, described in Section 2.3. For each survey, a draft report summarizing the HEDs will be prepared for subsequent inclusion in the final report. The surveys which'fol!ow include a brief description of the effort required to satisfy regulatory guidance.

o Noise Survey - The noise survey was not addressed previously.

Ambient noise, signal, and communication levels will be measured from various workstations and compared to individual checklist items.

8

4 ,

o Lighting Survey - The lighting survey is complete. Illumination

- levels were . previously measured at pre-established points in the -

control room for normal and emergency lighting and, where necessary, increased to acceptable standards. The survey contains several additional criteria related especially to glare and contrast.

.However, there is virtually no apparent problems with contrast.

Ambient illumination is sufficient throughout the control room.

Therefore, no additional measurements will be taken.

o CR Environment Survey - Temperature, humidity, and ventilation measurements will be taken. Assessments will be made by direct measurement of these parameters and comparison to individual checklist items, o Workspace Survey - Workspace arrangement, decor, and document organization, storage and use have already been evaluated and found to be satisfactory. Control room workspace criteria will be check-listed for documentation purposes.

o Controls Survey - All controls on the main control boards, on the HVAC panels, on the fire and security panels, and on the remote shutdown panels were evaluated for compliance to established human engineering criteria. Controls that were not previously surveyed (e.g., radiation panel, incore/excore panel) will be evaluated at this time. Additionally, all controls will be checklisted for documentation purposes. - Where indicated by operator observation, force / torque information for suspect control types will be collected for compar!-

son to checklist items.

o Displays Survey - As with the controls survey, the display types were previously assessed for compliance to appropriate human engi-neering criteria, such as adequacy of scales and scale markings, compatibility of pointer movement with scale and response stereo-types, pointer design, and design of recorder and counter displays,

- etc. Over 200 indicators were replaced or redesigned as a result of the survey. Checklist items will be applied to identify any possible remaining problems and for documentation purposes.

o Labels and Location Aids Survey - Control board relabeling was done as part of previous efforts which ensured that control room equipment was appropriately labeled, the label content was consis-tent across control room usage and with procedure nomenclature, and that label character size, font, stroke width, and separation complied with applicable guidelines for readability. Appropriate abbreviations and acronyms were compiled for the evaluation and correction of labels and a labeling specification document detailing the mechanism and criteria for correcting label deficiencies was prepared. Addi-tionally, the adequacy of existing location aids, including control panel demarcation and mimics was assessed. Labeling and location aids criteria will be checklisted for documentation purposes.

l-9

e' o _ Conventions Survey - Operations personnel were previously surveyed to identify plant conventions for:

arrangement of systems and components for sequencing of

'-related operations (left-to-right, top-to-bottom, etc.) .

- . color, shape, position, and other kinds of coding techniques control operation (clockwise-on, counterclockwise-off, etc.)

The conventions were evaluated for their correspondence to human

. expectancy (stereotypes) and information loading criteria. Applica-tion of the conventions throughout the ::ontrol room were evaluated for consistency and apprcpriateness of use. Potential component confusions-such as strings of identical components and the use of similarly or identically shaped legend lights and legend pushbuttons

were also identified. Checklist items will be applied to identify any.

- possible remaining items. -

- o Computer Survey - A human engineering review of the CR process computer, Plant Safety Status Display (PSSD/SPDS), and Bypassed /

Inoperable Status Indication (BISI) Systems will be conducted to identify deviations from accepted human factors principles. The survey will focus primarily on an assessemnt of operator- computer dialogue, keyboard, and data entry devices, plus CRT display charac-teristics, printer characteristics,' and formats.

o Emergency Equipment Survey - An evaluation of operator protec-tive equipment will be conducted to e:sess the availability and usability of the equipment, suit ' size compatability, equipment

_ accessibility, ease of donning and doffing, and the ability to perform control board operetions with suit donned, o Annunciators Survey - Analyses were previously performed to identify and evaluate: ~

-. nuisance and/or unnecessary annunciators

- _ false alarming conditions

- coding and prioritization schemes

- functional grouping

- location of related controls and displays

- reflash, ringback, silence, and acknowledge functions

- first out capability.

(:

r The readability (character size, font, strokewidth, and separation),

l, visual alarm recognition, ease of_ maintainability, response proced-L ures, and audible alarm features were also evaluated for their conformance to human engineering criteria and standards. Checklist items will be applied to identify any remaining items and for documentation purposes, .

o Anthropometrics Survey- Anthropometric considerations of the CR workspace have been evaluated, but have not yet been compared to checklist item requirements. An analysis of reach and visual access lL l~

to CR components (e.g., funiture, boar'ds, panels) will be conducted,

! and the data subsequently compared to checklist requirements.

- Criteria for operability by the population bound by the 5th percentile female through the 95th percentile male will be employed.

(.

l:

10'

+

o - Communications Survey - Complete speech intelligibility and check-listing of communications modes are necessary. All communication modes employed by control room; operators will be assessed. The ,

criterla~ for- equipment evaluation includes ' operation under high

. ambient noise levels, accessibility to operator, quality of amplified communication, adequacyJ of auditory signals, and dedication of

~.important communication links.

o Maintainability Survey - Analyses were performed to identify and evaluate- operator . maintained corr.gonents. The review considered the ease of maintenance, elimination of hazards, safeguards against Interchanging components, recognition of component failures, and availability and accessibility lof maintenance supplies. A checklist.

and questionnaire will be applied to identify any possible remaining items and for documentation purposes.

'2.1.2.5 Task 5 - Verification of Task Performance Capabilities - The task verifi-cadon process ensures that the emergency operator tasks identified'in the WOG ERG System Review and Task Analysis can be performed in the V. C. Summer control room

= with minimum. potential for human error. .This evaluation task involves the conduct of two subtasks: . verification of equipment availability, and verification of human engineer-

~

.ing suitability. Both subtasks will be conducted in consort with the EOP development

, program which is designed to upgrade- existing EOPs to reflect the WOG emergency

. response guidelines. This approach, involving coordination between the CRDR and the EOP. development program, is recommended in NUREG-0737 and will ensure compatibility between EOPs and the control boards. In the first subtask, verification of equipment availability, the first step involves verifying the presence or absence of equipment that provides the information and control capabilities necessary to carry out each task. The second step involves verifying that correct nomenclature and abbreviations have been used. Finalized first draft versions of 'the EOPs will be walked through at the ' Main

~

Control Board (MCB) or the simulator to verify equipment presence and label content. All discrepancies will be resolved and corrections made to the EOPs, where required.

In the second subtask, verification of suitability, the first step is to determine

whether the man-machine interfaces provided by the controls and displays are effectively designed to support task performance. A representative set of EOPs will be selected which-involve all CR workstations. Control and display (C/D) requirements from the EOPs selected will be compared to the MCB equipment. All equipment will be evaluated using a checklist to ensure appropriateness to operating requirements. The second step is to identify interface problems that may affect task performance, but may not be evident when CR components are examined without reference to specific task use. The EOPs 11

l

~

selected for- use 1n step one will again be used to ensure universal workstation involvement. - Checklists and Spatial-Operational Sequence Diagrams (S-OSDs) will be used to assess control / display relationships including C/D integration, component grouping, sequencing, and layout consistency. The S-OSDs will serve to:

o ' Identify the components which are involved in carrying out subsystem -

functions o Identify the sequence of component use o Identify the associated C/Ds for a particular action o Facilitate task accomplishment and document task results.

In addition, by identifying corresponding functions between control panels (if applicable), location and sequence aspects of the layouts consistency can be assessed.

Checklist criteria will be applied to each S-OSD sheet and discrepancies will be noted.

All S-OSDs involving a discrepant component will be analyzed to assess frequency of use and importance for the equipment used in task sequences. This technique should resolve the majority of discrepancies involving CR instruments which are shared across functions.

The remaining discrepancies will be identified for HED evaluation.

In both verification subtasks, operator task requirements will be verified using the MCB or the simulator. In the event that neither is available, the CR Inventory conducted by Gilbert Commonwealth (A.E.) will be used.

2.1.2.6 Task 6 - Validation of CR Functions- This effort will determine if the functions allocated to the CR operators during emergency conditions can be accomplished effectively within the structure of the newly developed EOPs, training programs, and the design of the CR. Items and questions for specific evaluation relating to procedure and workspece design will be compiled from other data collection sources (e.g., results from the verification of suitability ' subtask) which have identified possible discrepancies in procedural direction and execution. Walk-throughs/ talk-throughs of selected events will l then be conducted in the CR or the simulator at which time previously identified discrepancies will be validated or dispelled. In addition, timelines will be prepared for each event and traffic patterns sketched on CR floor plan drawings to validate the response sequences stated in the procedures. This process w!!!, therefore, serve as a i

means of validating crew workload, task allocation, traffic patterns, and training. It will also serve -as a way to analyze and validate HEDs having to do with workspace and .

procedure design.

(

l I

l l-12

f 2.1.2.7 Task Discrepancy Assessment - Assessment is discussed in deteil in Section 6.0 of this plan. In general, the process is as follows:

1. Assess extent of deviation from guidelines.

2. Estimate increase in potential for human error for the discrepancy.

3. Determine if discrepant components affect safety-related operations.

4. ' Determine' if errors caused by component discrepancies could lead to violation of technical specifications or unsafe operation.

5. Categorize HEDs into levels of significance, based on the above.

2.1.3 Phase III - Enhancement and Design Solutions By this phase of the CRDR, the HFE review of the cotnrol room is essentially complete. Discrepancies have been identified and their degree of deviation from the

. guidelines have been determined. During this phase of the review, the extent of corrections will be determined and any decisions not to fully correct discrepancies will be justified. The basic procedure to be employed a identifying and selecting enhancements and design solutions is depicted in Figure 4. . Throughout this procedure, HEDs identified from other CR programs (i.e., EOP, SPDS, & PAM elements) will be processed to. ensure that design improvements are consistent with the requirements and conclusions of this program.

2.1.3.1 Analysis of Correction by Enhancement - Discrepancies selected for cor-rection are first examined for possible correction by enhancement (Figure 5). Enhance-ment techniques involve changes which can generally be implemented without a major design effort (i.e., labeling, demarcation, coding, procedures, training). Each HED is considered and, where such correction is possible, the discrepancy is reassessed for its effect on operator performance. As necessary, proposed enhancements are re-evaluated via checklisting until HFE suitability is verified. Where it is determined that correction by enhancement is not possible, the discrepancy is analyzed for correction by design alternatives.

2.1.3.2 Analysis of Correction by Design Alternative - In this step, a design improvement analysis -is conducted to identify and select design solutions for those discrepancies not correctable by enhancement (Figure 6). Identification of design alternatives (e.g., relocation, replacement, conformance to process conventione) will be achieved by re-examining the HED in reference to the WOG SRTA data to ensure that operator decision and action requirements will not be jcopardized by the proposed change.

The effectiveness and feasability of each design alternative will be evaluated considering 13

HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCIES TO BE ANALYZED FOR CORRECTION

• FROM CRDR PROGRAM e FROM OTHER CR PROGRAMS 1

r ANALYSIS FOR CORRECTION BY -

ENHANCEMENT REFER TO FIGURE 5 1 r YES RECT ITH ENHANCE-I ' NT7 DESIGN AND -

NO VERIFY ANALYSIS OF CORRECTION BY IMPLEMENT AND DESIGN ALTERNATIVE DOCUMENT REFER TO FIGURE 6 u

ASSESS EXTENT OF CORRECTION o

YES PARTIALLY CORRECTED 7 o u

, Ne 2eS11FY - DeCe-N1

,M,=E= ,,,N JUSTIFY AND

" DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT IMPLEMENTATION i r DOCUMENT Ff,GURE 4. SELECTION OF DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS 14

HED U

CONSIDER ENHANCEMENT ^

ALTERNATIVES t

RE EVALUATE HED V

HED YES RESOLVED

?

NO ,

ERROR YES POTENTIAL AND ASSESSMENT

<2 No U

HED SELECTED FOR CORRECTION ,

BY DESIGN ALTERNATNES l

t l V DETAILED ENHANCEMENT DESIGN, IMPLE-MENTATION AND DOCUMENTATION FIGURE 5. FLOW FOR CORRECTION OF HEDs BY ENHANCEMENT 15

l HED I

t REVIEW WOG ERG SRTA i r IDENTIFY ALTERNATNES ir EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES ir

• ND NO YES ENHANCEMENT YES HED ALTERNATIVES EXHAUSTED SOLUTIONS RESOLVED

?  ? POSSIBLE /

?

YES o N0 ir i ,

JUSTIFY &

NEW DOCUMENT YES -

HEDs INTRODUCED

?

NO DESIGN NO FEASIBLE ENGINEERING

?

YES SCHEDULE IMPLEMENT  :

DOCUMENT FIGURE 6. PROCESS FOR ANALYZING HED DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

~

16

2 cost estimates, schedule constraints, and the expected benefits to operator performance.

+ - Additionally, the impact of each proposed design change on operator training, plant 1 maintenance,'and documentation will elso be considered, as will the reduction in risk associated with eliminating or reducing the priority of each HED. '

~2.1.3.3 Assess Extant of Correction - For all HEDs selected for correction, the

' extent of correction will undergo evaluation. The means to achieve the assessment is

' simply l reapplication. of the Task 4 guidelines and verification of HFE suitability. -

Optimally, the solution should bring the discrepancy into full compliance with the intent of the guideline. 'In some instances, partial conformance may be justified. In other cases, a design solution may be physically ' impossible. In: the event that less than . full conformance is. achieved, the outstanding discrepancies will be identified, justified, and .

documented. -

2.1.4. Phase IV - Reporting

- The final report will detail .the methodology, review findings, and design solutions

. resulting from the control room design review project. Specifically, the final report will address:

• -o: The CRDR phases o The technical activities

-- review of operating experience

- assembly of CR documentation

- conduct of CR surveys 4

-- verification of task performance capability-

+ - validation of CR functions-o Method of assessment of discrepancies

< o Method of identification and selection of enchancement and design

- solutions -

o Improvements to be made

_ ~ -- enhancements / justification / extent of correction

- design alternative / justification / extent of correction o Schedule of implementation.

The format for the CRDR final report is outlined in.Section 4.4. of this Program Plan.

' 2.2 Schedule The estimated -milestone schedule by task appears in Figure 7. The schedule considers the coordination required for integrating this project with other projects which may affect control room human factors.

17

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

1983 1984 NOV DEC JAN l FEB l MAR APR l MAYJUN l JUL l AUGSEPlOCT PHASE l - PROJECT PLANimlG TASK 1 - PREPARE ANO SUBMIT PROGRAM PLAN  :  :

PHASE il - CR REVIEW TASK 1 - OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW  :  ;

. TASK 2 ASSEMBLY OF CR DOCUMENTATION  :

TASK 3 REVIEW OF SYSTEMS FUNCTIONS AND ANALYSIS OF OPERATOR TASKS

• TASK 4 - CR SURVEY  : '

TASK 5 - VERIFICATION OF TASK PERFORMANCE CAPABILITIES ---  :

^ "

TASK 6 VAll0AT10N OF CR FUNCTIONS TASK 7 - DISCREPANCY ASSESSMENT  : "

PHASE 111 ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS l TASK 1 - ANALYZE AND SELECT CORRECTIVE ACTION  :  ;

PHASE IV - REPORTING

, TASK 1 - DEVELOP BACKFIT SCHEDULES  :  :

TASK 2 PREPARE FINAL REPORT  :  :

'SINCE THE WOG ERG GENERIC TASK ANALYSIS IS TO BE USED FOR THE CROR. THIS TASK HAS ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED.

l I

j FIGURE 7. ESTIMATED CRDR MILESTONE SCHEDULE i

I i

I .

4

2.3. . Integration SCE&G's plant-specific program for integrating the basic requirements for emer-gency response capability with the specific requirement of the CRDR program is shown in Figure 8. Each step in the program and its relationship to previous and succeeding steps is discussed in the letter submitted to Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear

-- Regulation, April 15, 1983 in response to Generic Letter 82-33. Basically, during the phase of the program entitled " Integration of All Control Room Elements," the results of the EOP, CRDR, and PAM elements together with the completed SPDS will be integrated with' respect to the overall enhancement of the operator's ability to comprehend plant conditions and cope with emergencies. Backfit implementation schedules will be prepared at this time. Scheduling of HED backfits will be a function of:

o 'HED category and significance level o Engineering and procuring lead time requirements and constraints o Overall plant outage schedules.

Control room modifications required to resolve HEDs from all CR programs will be coordinated to assure an effective, cost-conscious resolution of concerns. Discrepancy scheduling is- discussed in greater detail in Section 6.0 of this Program Plan. SCE&G projects that steps in the plan down to and including the integration of all CR elements will be comoleted prior to startup af ter the first refueling.

19

EOP CADR UPGRADE PLAN PitOGRAM PLAN h 5 4 4 6 6 WRITERS WOG WOG ERG PREVIOUS CROR OPERATWG F WAL FWAL Gul0ES ' ERGS SYSTEM ftEVIEW & AND UPGRADE EXPER4ENCE AND SPDS 8

(peRC APPROVED) TASK ANALYS8$ (COMPLETE) OPER. IpeTEnveEWS (FUNCTIONAL)

(COtePLETE) l E I I E I E _ '

i INITIAL PLANT CONTROL W GENEftic OES4GN EXISTING ROOM SAsas FOR Pats PAGd

! SPECsFeC SURVEY eseSTRut0ENTS INSTputeENTS UPORADED EOPs 6 t o g

• PLANT SPECIFIC EM > HEOs DEssGN SASIS FOR SACKUP TSC.OSC.EOP WALKTHROUGH PARA INSTRUMENTS EOF GCOGAPLETEI

+ RESOLVE ANOMALIES lestTIAL EOP

' SY REVIS4NG e VALIDATION AND EOPelTRAmeNG WEfteFICATION N E 't ir Q

I '

i,

{

IAAPLEMENT EOPs INTEGRATeON GF

' ALL CONTROL ROOtt WN3 -

CONTROL ItOORA 0000s ELEMENTS

i 1 6 6 6 7 TRAltitNG UPGRADED g gg PMRARI Em ABOOlFICATION leeSTRuteENTS I 6 6 e o "

6 i " 4 l j INTEGRATED RESOLVE AfeOGIALIES j . SYSTEas  % SV REVIsessG VALIDATION PERTifeENT ELEasENTS S

4 ItBPLEteENT FIOdAL OESIGNSFROGRAAAS j $R RAOOs. PAnd. EOPs.

TRAlesefeG) l i

i FIGURE 8. PLANT SPECIFIC PROGRAM FOR INTEGRATING REQUIREMENTS FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPABILITY 4

3.0 MANAGEMENT APO STAFFING 3.1 Introduction This section details the management responsibility of the CRDR managers, and describes the evaluation team structure.

3.2 Management Repsonsibility 3.2.1 Human Engineering Program Manager (HEPM)

The HEPM will be South Carolina Electric and Gas Company's designated repre-sentative who will have the overall responsibility for the administration of the Control Room Design Review Program. Responsibilities of the HEPM include, but are not limited to:

o The overall administration of the CRDR of SCE&G's nuclear generating unit at the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station.

o Administering vendor contracts associated with the performance of the CRDR.

'o Integrating and coordinating the CRDR with other CR programs as described in the SCE&G response to Generic Letter 82-33.

o Coordinating and developing the necessary administrative controls to support the organization controls of an implementation program.

3.2.2 Project Director The SCE&G Control Room Design Review Program will be conducted by Essex Corporation. The review program will be assigned to the Essex Industrial Services Department directed by Mr. David R. Eike who is responsible for all Essex energy-related activities. Mr. Eike will ensure that the required resources are made available, and that the program receives the attention it deserves from Essex top management.

Within the department, the project will be assigned to the Systems Analysis Branch, which is directed by Mr. Walter T. Talley. Mr. Talley will serve as the Project Director.

In this role he will be responsible for directing and coordinating the necessary personnel, task teams and review groups required to support the CRDR effort. This arrangement of administralve responsibility allows the CRDR management team to quickly evaluate project priorities and assign personnel baeed on the overall project schedule. Specifically, Mr. Talley's responsibilities will include:

21

- - - - . ~ _

. l l

o Serving as primary management interface with SCE&G o - Allocating personnel and other resources to the project o Developing program schedules against plans o Monitorirs progress against plans o Identifying and resolving problems o' Reporting prooress and problems to SCE&G's Responsible Officer o Modifying work plans with SCE&G and Essex management approval.

- 3.3 Evaluation Team Structure and Management 3.3.1 Project Manager Mr. T. J. Voss will serve .as the CRDR Project Manager. In this role, he will continue as Project Manager from the EOP Development Program, and will report directly to both - the HEPM and the Project Director. He will be responsible for the timely performance of all tasks and will supervise project personnel on a day-to-day basis.

Additionally, Mr. Voss will serve as the HED Review Team Chairman. In this capacity he

.will preside over the HED Review Team and will be responsible for coordinating the Review Team effort. In those roles, he will:

o Serve as principal project interface with SCE&G o Supervise and coordinate task efforts o Develop project schedules and work plans o Request personnel and other resources L ~ o Be responsible for meeting contract milestones and deadlines o Report project progress to SCE&G and to the Project Director.

[

3.3.2 Site Manager The CRDR Site Manager will be Mr. Stephen A. Fleger. As Site Manager, s

l Mr. Fleger will be responsible for directing the review effort on-site in accordance with

the agreed upon contractual scope. He will report directly to the Project Manager and will also be a member of the HED Review Team. Mr. Fleger is responsible for directing and managing the on-site Essex Corporation review effort, as well as providing input to help formulate assessment, disposition, and recommended backfits for HEDs addressed during the HED Review Team meetings.

l l.

22

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

_3.3.3 Human Factors Evaluation Group The Human Factors Evaluation Group will be composed of human factors specia!!sts responsible for the data collection, data reduction, and data analysis phases of the design review. At this time, the indisiduals whoi.will be directly involved !!n', or indirectly support, the project include:

o T. 'J. Voss - Project Manager, Research Scientist o Stephen A. Fleger - Site Manager, Research Scientist o John Farbry - Senior Research Scientist o Denise McCafferty - Research Scientist o Don Seibert, Jr. - Research Asuciate o . Dale Pilsitz - Senior Operatiom Spr.cialist.

Mr. Voss, Mr.'Fleger, and Mr. Seibert were involved in'the EOP Development Program for SCF&G. Additionally, Mr. Fleger participated,in the preliminary human factors engi-neering review of the V. C.: Summer control room, while Mr. Voss managed the HFE evaluation and improvement _ plan required for NTOL plants prior to fuel loading.

Mr. Pilsitz in a former shift supervisor with over twenty years of experience in the nuclear power Industry. Mr. Pilsitz will provide operational and engineering analysis as required. Ms. McCafferty is familiar with the V. C. Summer Plant in that she partici-pated in the original procedures rewriting project for SCE&G. Dr. Farbry will be consulted.on an as-needed basis for discrepancy resolution recommendations. If one or

more of the individuals just mentioned cannot be provided due to unforseen circum-stances, personnel of equivalent background or experience _ will be substituted. Resumes for the individuals identified above can be found in Appendix A.

3.3.4 WD Review Team The HE Review Team will be comprised of a minimum six members: the Program Manager, the Project Manager, the Site Manager, a reactor operator, a shift technical advisor, and an Instrumentation and Control (I&C) Engineer.

, The Project Manager will serve as the HED Review Team Chairman, and will be

^

responsible for coordinating the HED Review Team effort. The Chairman interfaces with the designated site operations representatives to arrange for Review Team access to:

plant information, required facilities,'and personnel with useful or necessary information.

The HED Review Team Chairman presides over the HED Review Team meetings and coordinates the necessary personnel and resources required to support the assessment, 23

disposition, and backfit implementation phase for HEDs submitted to the team for review by the contracted HFE Consultant Review Team. The HED Review Team Chairman is responsible for signing the disposition block and signifying HED Review Team concurrence or. dissenting opinion. The HEDs are then reviewed for engineering scope, material

. requirements, and implementation schedule. The implementation schedule will then be

.. incorporated into the CRDR final report for submittal to the NRC for review and approval.-

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, disposi-tions, and recommended backfits for HEDs addressed during the HED Review Team

. meetings. A reactor operator will also be available to assist the Human Factors Consultant Review Team during their CRDR effort.

A shift technical advisor (STA) will be a member of the HED Review Team. The STA will provide operational and engineering input to help assess system consequences which could result from hypothesized operational errors related to the discrepancy, and to recommend backfits for HEDs addressed during the Review Team meetings.

An Instrumentation and Control (I&C) Engineer will also be a member of the HED Review Team. The I&C -Engineer will provide input to the team with regard to regulations, standards, s .d 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.

As the need arises, other discipline representatives from various organizations such as the architect engineer, nuclear steam system supplier and/or utility may be required to support the HED Review Team effort.

3.3.5 Operational / Engineering Support

.SCE&G will make available additional personnel to support the program manage-ment, the Human Factors Evaluation Group, and the HED Review Team on an as-needed basis. This could include personnel from the Operations, Maintenance, Technical Support, Health Physic::, Scheduling, Training, Licensing, or Engineering organizations. The Human Engineering Program Manager will be responsible for making qualified support personnel available. The CRDR Final Report will reflect which support personnel provided significant input to the review. Resumes of key individuals can be found in Appendix B.

24

1 4.0 DOCUMENTATION abo DOCUMENT CONTROL 4.1 Introduction Three types of documentation will be used or developed during the review:

. (1) reference documentation, (2) process and HED documentation, and (3) CRDR findings and reports.

4.2 Reference Documentation A program library will be established with reference documents to support the CRDR tasks. The library will contain:

4 o Licensee Event Reports o Off Normal Occurrence Reports o FSARs o Technical specifications and system descriptions a P&lDs o Floor plans o Panel drawings o Emergency Operating Procedures o WOG ERG System Review and Task Analysis o Computer terminal operators manual o List of CR acronyms and abbreviations o Sof tware descriptions o Samples of computer printouts o August 1980 Essex HFE Review o August 1980 NRC audit o November 1980 HFE Evaluation and Improvement Program Plan o January 1981 HFE Evaluation and Improvement Report o March 1982 HF Enhancement and Backfit Implementation Report o CRDR Progree . Plan o Letters to the NRC - Deficiency Resolutions o . SER Section 2.2.2, item I.D.1 - Evaluation of Deficiency Resolutions o Various NRC and industry documents bearing on CR design (0700, 0660, Seminara, et al, etc) o HFE texts, reports, and articles.

25

The documents will be referred to as needed in support of specific tasks within the CR evaluation.

4.3 Procoes and FED Documentation 4.3.1 Process Documentation The methods by which the data colllection and data reduction process takes place will be documented for reporting purposes. The individual task plans described in Section 5.0 will serve as the basic process documentation. The general flow of information and documentation management is represented in Figure 9.

4.3.2 HED Reports Control room items found to be discrepant from preferred human engineering practice will be documented on Human Engineering Discrepancy Report forms. "ach HED report form contains the following information (see Figure 10):

o Description of the human factors problem o Reference number of the criterion (guideline) violated o Component type o . Specific nomenclature or generic identification of all panel compo-nents or other equipment in violation o Panel number and location of components 0 Discrepancy origin (data collection procedure or task plan used in identifying the HED) o Potential errors which could result o ' Suggested backfits o Review information, including disposition.

The HED reports will be kept in data files that are to be established to keep track of the findings resulting from each task. The review results of HEDs, HED assessment, and the selected enhancement and design solutions will be organized into the following groups:

o Operating experience review findings o CR survey findings o Verificetion findings o Validation findings.

26

l l

l I

)

DATA COLLECTION DATA COLLECTION $ $ $ DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE 1 PROCEDURE 2 PROCEDURE n- l COLLECT DATA COLLECT DATA O O O COLLECT DATA IDENTIFY HEDs IDENTIFY HEDs O O O IDENTIFY HED:

DOCUMENT DOCUMENT O O O DOCUMENT MAP,E H FILE FILE O O O FILE TASK REPORT TASK REPORT TASK REPCRT o

l ASSESS HEDs o

UPDATE FILES i

r IDENTIFY RESOLUTIONS PHASE Ill * ,

UPDATE FILES DEVELOP DISPOSITION SCHEDULFS j

PHASE IV y FINAL REPORT FIGURE 9. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT FLOW 27

I HU'ZAN ENGINEEERIN3 DISCREPANCY REPORT f) SUGGESTONS FOR POTENTIAL BACKFITS l PLANT- DATE:

l HED e l .

3 REVIEWER NAME:

I a$ HED TITLE:

j C3 DISCREPANCY ORIGIN:

c) ITEMS MVOLVED:

]

INDIVIDUAL GENERfC EXCEPTION i

j ITEM TYPE NOMENCLATURE PANEL LOCATION g) ESSEX REVIEW 4

DATA COLLECTOR DATE t

) PROJECT DIRECTOR DATE I PROJECT MANAGER DATE l

1 I N i

! h) DISPOSITON l

eg PROBLEM DESCRIPTON HED COMMITTEE REVIEW DATE O FURTHR REVIEW BY DATE O TO BE CORRECTED SV DATE D REFER TO OPERATIONS I O NO ACTION

! O OTHER i

i e) SPtCIFIC OPERATOR ERROR (S) THAT COULD RESULT FROM HED:

l I

HED REVIEW TEAM CHAIRMAN DATE i

SCE&G PROGRAM MANAGER DATE I

1 I

i FIGURE 10. THE HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY REPORT i

i i

A separate task repor.t will be generated for each task plan detailing:

o Objectives of the task plan -

o The actual data collection and analysis methods employed o The criteria implemented o Summary of findings.

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

4.4 CRDR Findings and Reports The CRDR final re' port is prepared at the conclusion of the evaluation effort and consists primarily of the Process Documentation and HED reports previously prepared.

The format to be followed is presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1. CRDR FINAL REPORT CONTENTS o Executive Summary o introduction

- Background

- . Review Plan

- Management and Staffing

.o Methodology -

- Documentation

- Review Procedures

- Assessment Procedures o Review Findings and Results

- HED Reports

- Task Reports o implementation and Recommendations

- Completed Improvements

- Proposed Improvements The Introduction will provide an overview of the project background end a brief summary of the review plan and project staffing as previously described in the Program Plan. Any deviation from the Program Plan Report will be described.

The data storage, retrieval, collection, and reduction procedures subscribed to during the review effort will be described in the Methodology section of the report.

29 ,

Additionally, the assessment process used to identify and select design solutions will be summarized.

The Review Findings and Results section will consist of the HED Reports generated

' during the data collection procedures and the Task Reports that were written at the conclusion of each review procedure. The data contained in the HED . Reports will consitute the majority of the review findings, and may be found within the HED report section of the CRDR files. At the conclusion of the CRDR program, the Task Reports will be reformatted and inserted within this section of the final report.

The final section of the report will describe the design improvements accomplished during the course of the review, as well as. proposed design solutions, including their schedules for implementation.

30

5.0 TECl-NICAL APPROACH 5.1 Introduction The technical approach to be employed involves the application of detailed task plans which describe the activities to be followed in performing the following task:

o Operating experience review o CR survey o . Verification of task performance capabilities o Validation of CR functions.

Note that 'the tasks listed above are those which are expected to result in the identification of human engineering discrepancies.

5.2 Task Plans A total of 18 task plans will be used during the conduct of the CRDR program. The individual review procedures are identified in Table 2.

TABLE 2. TASK PLANS o Document Review o Personnel Survey o Backfit Implementation Review o Noise Survey o CR Environment Survey o Workspace Survey o Controls Survey o Displays Survey o Labels and Location Aids Survey o Conventions Survey o Computer Survey o Emergency Equipment Survey o Annunciators Survey o - Anthropometrics Survey o Communications Survey 31

i1 o Maintainability Survey o . Verification of Task Performance Capabilities o Validation of CR Functions

. The methodology used in the task plans incorporates a mix of traditional procedures

~and methods tailored to the specific requirements of SCE&G. 'The four basic methods

, . employed within each task plan are measurements, observations, interview / questionnaires,

- and documentation reviews. Within each of these methods, specific procedures have been developed ~which ensure 'a comprehensive data collection, data reduction, and analysis process.

b The total review phase is structured into a number of separate tasks, each task involving a specific set of related control room design features. For e . ample, environ-

, mental factors are organized into an illumination survey, a noise survey, an HVAC survey, and a work space survey. This structural approach, coupled with standardized task plans, a- allows _ for m'aximum flexibility during data collection, data reduction, and analysis, and yet, results in a standard, well-organized, self-documenting process and a comprehensive final report.

A!! task plans follow the general format of:

1)- Introduction (to include the objectives)

2) Review Team Selection and Responsibilities

3) . Criteria (from NUREG-0700, Section 6.0) 4). Procedures 5). . Equipment and Facility Requirements 6)~ Inputs and Data Forms

'7) Outputs and Results

8) Figures and Tables

9) . Procedure Exceptions

^'

'10) Appendices (as required)..

In addition to this general format, the control room survey task plans incorporate a unique

- and standardized set of appendices which allow maximum flexibility in tailoring data

- collection, analyses, audits, and follow-on backfitting procedures to each of these design i-

). - area's unique requirements. For example, it is often most effective to collect all measurement data (data requiring instrumentation) at one time, and possibly analyzing it all at one time. -Yet, during audits or backfit activities it is frequently necessary to use

- these data in separate groups. With the use of a graphics reticle and appropriate scale 32

= - . - . . .. . . . . . . . . . - .

(

~

-devices all labeling on annunciators, controls, displays, and general panel labeling can be rapidly checked and the data recorded. However, once collected in this manner, it is usually much more efficient and effective to address all display labeling : questions

- independent of controls and panel labels. The unique appendix structure to the task plans allows this flexibility without endangering the organization and control of the data base.

The appendix structure employed is:

Appendix A (Criteria) - This is a compendium of all 0700, Section 6.0 criteria

. In 0700 paragraph number order that are relevant to that task plan. It is used to summarize the final results.

Appendix B (Data Forms)- This appendix is further divided into the following:

81 Measurements Data -

Bl.1 Linear' Measurements (scalar, . force, torque, dimensional, air

. yolume, temperature, humidity)

Bl.2 Sound Measurements (noise, auditory signals, communications

~

systems auditory response characteristics)

Bl.3 Light Measurements (illumination levels, luminance character-latics, contrast ratios)

Bl.4 through Bl.n Others (as required)

.B2 Interviews and Questionnaires -

B2.1_ Operations B2.2 L Engineering B2.3 Instrumentation and Calibration B2.4 Management and Administration ,  ;

B2.5 through B2.n Others (as required).

B3 Observation Checklists B4 Documentation Review Checklists - ,

B5~ Analysis Aids for 81 - Measurements 85.1 ' Analysis Aids for Bl.1.

185.2 Analysis Aids for 81.2 85.3: Analysis Aids for 81.3 .

' .B5.4 through B5.n Analysis Aids for Bl.4 through Bl.n (as required) ,

. B6 Analysis Aids for B2 - Interviews / Questionnaires B7 Analysis Aids for 83 - Observation Checklists

~

B8 Analysis Aldi for B4 - Documentation Review Checklists B9 Additional forms, as required.

v wichough this structure may appear complex upon initial examination, its ability to

. support .the ' CRDR . functional requirements is : extraordinary. By simply collecting together, in sequential order, all operations questionnaires (Appendices B2.1 from all CR survey plans), a complete, well-organized operator's questionnaire is produced to support L

33

the operating experience review. It is organized into a logical order for operator responses, and there is an automatic audit track back to each discrete 0700 paragraph of

. concern. Once administered, summary analysis can be conducted at this level of organization across all physical and functional properties, of the control room. When 4 specific parts of the' questionnaire responses are required to support a specific survey analysis, those responses are easily and rapidly accessed. This same flexibility app!!es for all of the various types of data collection and analysis methodologies used in the task plans. Additional benefits result in a self-documenting, highly accessible data file for subsequent backfit and audit activities.

The task plans are part of a proprietary data collection package developed by SCE&G's human engineering contractor, Essex Corporation; and, as such, are not available for general release. If the NRC requires examination of the individual plans, they.will be made available upon request.

e

\

-34

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

d 6.0 ASSESSMENT APO IMPLEMENTATION 6.1 Assessment of FEDS Human engineering discrepancies found during Phase II of the CRDR will be evaluated according to their adverse impact on plant operations. The basic assessment process is divided into four steps as follows:

o Assess systom consequences of error occurrence o Assess extent of deviation from guidelines o Assess HED impact on error occurrence o Assessment integration and scheduling.

6.1.1 Assess System Consequences of Error Occurrence In this step system consequences (e.o., reactor trip, safety injection) of known and hypothesized operational errors will be evaluated. Three determinations are required:

1. Is the HED known to have contributed to or caused an operating crew error?

2. Did the error result in an unsafe operation, plant condition, or violation of technical specifications?

3. Does the HED relate to plant functions of _high safety importance or the plant functions required to mitigate the consequences of an accident?

A yes or no response is required for each question. The expertise of the HED Review Team's technical staff and operations representatives will be used for assessing system consequences of error occurrence.

6.1.2 Assess Extent of Deviation from Guidelines This step requires that a more or less subjective assessment of the extent of discrepancy from HFE guidelines be made with regard to the CR. For example, character height might subtend 18 minutes of arc rather than 20 minutes, 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 CR component under assessment. Extent of deviation is then subjectively scaled from 1 (some deviation) to 5 (complete deviation). Extent of deviation Ju'd gements are not directly used to assess priority, or by corollary, determine the scheduling of backfits, but are used to assess the increase in potential for operator error. It is possible to have little : deviation from the guidelines and high error assessments, and vice versa; however, deviation and error assessment will probably positively correlate.

35

6.1.3 Assess FED Impact on Error Occurrence During the third step of discrepancy assessment, the HED impact on a hypothetical

-error rates is assessed to determine the increase in potential for error probability associated with the discrepancy. Estimates of HED impact on error occurrence are qualitatively arrived at by consideration of the following topic areas:

o Body physiology

- Fatigue / physical stress Discomfort

- Injury

- Anthropometry o Sensory / perceptual performance Vision

- Audition

- Proprioception .

- Touch o Information processing

- Overload -

- Confusion

- Recall

- Pattern matching / recognition

- Data manipulation (comparing, extrapolating, etc.)

o Learning Inhibition

- Habituation

- Response predominance

- Transfer

- Response competition

- Response latency L o Task Demands l

- Frequency

- Duration

- Competition

' - Sequence

- Speed

- Communication

( Precision l

- Information.

Both_ potential for degrading operator performance and severity of the consequence of error occurrence (e.g., error of omission, inadvertent actuation, etc.) will be assessed by subjecting each HED to a series of questions relating to the aforementioned topic areas l (Exhibit 1). Responses to the questions will be considered collectively, and an overall assessment of error. impact will be estimated for the following:

i 36

f.

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 as a result of the HED?

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

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

Determination of the degree to which the discrepancy degrades performance and an assessment of the severity of the consequences resulting from the error will again be relegated to a five-point scale. Based on the above, a subjective assessment of error impact is generated. The expertise of the HFE Consultant Review Team will be used for assessing HED impact on error occurrence.

EXHIBIT 1. SAMPLE ITEMS FOR ASSESSMENT OF FED IMPACT ON ERROR OCCURRENCE To what extent do the following apply?

1. This discrepancy will cause undue operator fatigue.

2. This discrepancy will cause operator confusion.

3. This discrepancy will cause operator discomfort.

4. This discrepancy presents a risk of injury to control room personnel.

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

6. This discrepancy will distract control room personnel from their duties.

7. This discrepancy will affect the operator's abi:ity to see or read accurately.

. 8. This diecrepancy will affect the operator's ability to hear correctly.

9. This discrepancy will degrade the operator's ability to communicate with others (either inside or outside the control room).

10. This discrepancy will degrade the operator's ability to manipulate controls correctly.

11. This discrepancy will cause a delay of necessary feedback to the operator.

12. Because of this discrepancy, the operator will not be provided with positive feedback about control tasks,

13. - This discrepancy violates control room conventions or practices.

14. This discrepancy violates nuclear industry conventions.

15. This discrepancy violates population stereotypes.

37

l r

16.. ' Operators have attempted to correct this discrpancy themselves (by self-training, temporary labels, " cheaters,"~" helper" controls, compensatory body movements, etc.).

' 17. Tasks'in which this discrepancy is involved will be highly stressful (i.e., highly .

time constrained, of serious consequence, etc.). .

~

18. This discrepancy will -lead to inadvertent . activation or deactivation of controls. ' '

19. If this discrepancy caused a specific error, it is probable that another error of equal or more serious consequence will be committed.

- 20. - 1This discrepancy is involved in a task which is usually performed concurrently ,

with' another taks (e.g., watching water level meter while manipulating a

' throttle valve control).

21. . This discrepancy involves controls or displays that are used by operators while

. executing emergency procedures.

22. The plant's' response to the error would provide a positive warning (e.g., alarm) that the error has been committed.

23. The plant's response to the error would provide the operator sufficient time to

correct it.

6.1.4 ' Assessment Integration and Scheduling ,

A logic diagram and a form for assessment is presented in Figure 11. The diagram shows how these data are integrated to assign categories and significance levels to HEDs.

Table 3 shows the breakdown ~ of category, significance, and priority as a function of system consequence and HED impact. Each HED generated during the review phase will

- undergo assessment, and the results will be documented on the HED Priority Record form shown in Figure 11.

- Category I HEDs are those which have been noted from documented errors.

Category 11 HEDs are those associated with a high potential for degrading performance, and Category III discrepancies are those which are associated with a relatively low-

. potential for degrading performance. Category I, II, and Ill HEDs are all considered to increase error potential, but system consequence and HED impact must still be assigned to determine significance level.- Significance level for scheduling of backfit purposes is per the following:

. Level A '- Prompt . Action. Correct promptly on schedule approved by NRC. Make

-changes at the first refueling after submittal of the report to the NRC given availability of materials, manpower, and engineering lead timc.

< Level 8 - Near Term. . Correct on schedule approved by NRC. Make changes no later than second refueling outage after submittal of the report given availability of

. materials, manpower, and engineering lead time.

38 t ,,-s,.-.w, .e4% c. w -,,*,-,-,,.r.e,-,.m,%--.- .w . - - , - , w , -- ,.r,.e,- ew ww -..-..w. . -y,.,e-wm,.,3,-e.,em,-. ~.

HED #

1. DOCUMENTED ERROR YES NO

2. DOCUMENTED:

A. UNSAFE CONDITION YES NO

8. TECH. SPEC. VIOLATION YES N3-

3. HIGH SAFETY IMPORTANCE OR YES NO REQUIRED TO MITIGATE ACCIDENT

^

4. EXTENT OF DEVIATION FROM GUIDELINES SOME COMPLETE 1 2 3 4 5

5. POTENTIAL FOR DEGRADING PERFORMANCE N/A LOW HIGH 1 2 3 4 5

6. ERROR ASSESSMENTICONSEQUENCE OF ERROR OCCURRENCE g HIGH 1 2 3 4 5 HED 1 '

/\

/ POTENTIAL CATEGORY N/A OW CATEGORY

'FOR DEGRADIN  ;

I \ PERFORMANCE Ill

\! HIGH u o DOCUhiENTED "

YES NSAFE CONDITION ERROR HIGH CATEGORY SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL A TECH SPE U IU ^ Y ^

VIOLATION NO  :

SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL C HIGH ERROR HIGH S YES _

ASSESSMENT IMPORT S SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL A SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL A

, NO u LOW q LOW SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL B SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL B SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL B FIGURE 11. HED PRIORITY RECORD 39

TALM.E 3 ASSESSMENT OF SIGNFICANCE AS A FUNCTION OF ERROR CONSEQUENCE APO ERROR IMPACT d

Documented Unsafe Condition High Low Deviation Documented or Safety Safety from Error Error Significence Error Tech Spec Violation Importance Importance Guideline Potential Assessmest Category Level Priority YES YES YES NO >l N/A HI/LO I A 1 YES YES NO YES >l N/A HI/LO I A 2 YES NO EITHER >1 N/A HI I A 3 YES NO EITHER > l. N/A LO I B 7 NO NO YES NO >l HI HI II A .4 NO NO NO YES >l HI HI II B 6 NO NO EITHER >l HI LO II B 8 NO NO EIT E R >l LO HI III A 5 NO NO EIT E R >l LO LO III C 9 i

j

/

Level C - Long Term. Outage independent. Corrections may be implemented at any time but should be made to minimize unscheduled down time, enhance general CR design, or to maintain consistency.

The ultimate priority for scheduling backfits between categories and within signifi-cace levels is shown in the last column of Table 3.

6.2 Implementation Once the discrepancies have been classified according to their relative importance, each HED will be evaluated for correction by enhancement or by design alternatives. This process consitutes Phase Ill of the CRDR, and has previously been discussed under Section 2.1.3 of this program plan. Once the disposition has been resolved (the means by which an HED will be ameliorated), and the extent of correction determined, candidate backfits will undergo assessment to ensure that the HEDs have been adequately addressed.

Backfits implemented subsequent to the initial CR review will likewise be assessed. The form to be used to document the results of the HED backfit assessment and implementa-tion process is shown in Figure 12. All modifications, whether enhancements or design alternatives, will be handled under SCE&G design control programs.

6.3 Follow-up Programs During the CRDR effort, programs will be developed to ensure that ongoing maintenance of the CR conforms to accepted HFE criteria. As part of the follow-up program, a verification process will be established to ensure that selected design improvements do, in fact, provide solutions to the discrepancies they were intended to correct, without introducing new discrepancies. Such follow-up programs will be fully described in the CRDR Final Report.

6.4 Summary This Program Plan Report defines the overall process by which the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station CRDR program will be performed. It is an effective and thorough review which expands on the earlier NRC and Essex Corporation HFE reviews of the VCS control room. . A consideration in the development of this plan was to coordinate the CRDR with related HFE work being, or previously, performed by SCE&G or identified as a future requirement. As such, SCE&G believes that the intent of all applicable NRC regulations and guidelines will be satisfied by this Program Plan.

41

1 l

l l

HED #

PROPOSED IMPLEMENTED 1 ENHANCEMENT BACKFIT BACKFIT a) LABELING a) b) DEMARCATION b) c) CODING c) d) PROCEDURES d) e) TRAINING e) 2 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES a) RELOCATION a) b) REPLACEMENT b) c) CONFORMANCE TO PROCESS CONVENTION c) d) OTHER d)

REASSESSMENT OF PROBABLE ERROR AND DEVIATION

1. EXTENT OF DEVIATION SOME COMPLETE FROM GUIDELINES 1 2 3 4 5

2. ERROR POTENTIAL LOW HIGH 1 2 3 4 5

3. ERROR ASSESSMENT LOW HIGH 1 2 3 4 5 YES DEV - 0 RESOLVED SIGNOFF: HEPM NO I f DATE ERROR YES POTENTIAL AND RESOLVED ASSESSMENT

<3 NO If

. REDESIGN BACKFIT OR JUSTIFY AND DOCUMENT FIGURE 12. HED BACKFIT ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION FORM 42

-I Th'e CRDR program will be conducted based on the methodologies described in this Program Plan Report. South Carolina Electric and Gas Company reserves the right to make changes, however, and will notify the NRC if thero are any significant departures from the methodologies described herein.

Final acceptance of this document will culminate the planning phase.

43

APPEFOlX A HUMAN FACTORS PROJECT STAFF RESUMES i

DAVID R. EIKE EDUCATION:

1978 M. A. . - (ABT) Experimental Psychology, George Mason  :

University, Fairfax, Virginia 1976 B.I.S. - Experimental Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia EXPERIENCE:

May 1977 ESSEX CORPORATION Present Alexandria, Virginia Director, Process Control Systems Department - Responsible for planning and managing Essex projects related to the design, test and evaluation of process control systems. Projects in this area include

design and evaluation of-nuclear power plant control rooms; development and validation of human engineering design criteria for nuclear power plants; development and validation of format specifications for operating and maintenance procedures for nuclear power plants.

Principal Investigator in an effort sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute to develop.a three-volume guidebook for integrating human factors engineering principles, methods and guidelines into the nuclear power plant development process.

Responsibilities include: development of' guidebook concept; preparation of volume and chapter outlines; and management of technical staf f.

Developed and conducted a 3-day seminar on Integrating Human Factors Engineering into the Nuclear Power Plant Design Pro-

, cess for EPRL Responsibilities included: development of '

seminar concept; preparation of materials; and presentation of seminar.

Program Manager for a project to evaluate Toshiba Advanced Control Room Concept for CHUBU Electric Company. Respon-sibilities include: review of program plan and.other project deliverables; preparation of task and cost schedules; allocation of personnel and other resources; direction of technical staff.

Program Manaaer, Man-Machine System Studies - Responsible for planning and managing Essex projects related to human factors engineering for man-machine systems. Responsibilities included: preparation of program plans; allocation of personnel and other resources; direction of technical staff; and conduct of

. program activities.

.- -.-. ,._ .. ---- - . , _ . _ . . . , , _ _ , - . . , , . . _ , - , , . , . . . . . . , , - . . . , , _ , . _ . . , . . , , ,__m. -e-, . ,,_ .,.mm

Program Manager in an effort to develop and' implement human engineering specifications for the design .of the Technical Support Center (TSC).at the Rancho Seco nuclear power plant for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. Responsibilities include: development of a functional and operational model of

.the. TSC;' specification _ of information transfer and display requirements; development and evaluation .of design concepts using checklists and mockup techniques; selection of optimal

' hardware / software configurations; and identification and evalua-tion of advanced process control display techniques.

Task Team Leader, Human Factors Test and Evaluation of Three Mile Island-Unit 2 Nuclear Power Plant control room. Responsi-bilities included: human engineering analysis of control room design; development and analysis of TMI-2 accident action timeline; identification of human engineering aspects as causal /

contributing factors.

Program Manager for an effort to develop test and evaluation methodologies for evaluating the soldier-computer interface for i the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command. Responsibilities included: preparation of program plan; review of contract deliverables; direction of technical staff.

L Principal investigator in a study to empirically define readability envelopes for miniature annunciators to be used in the control room of the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant for Baltimore Gas and Electric. Responsibilities included: conduct of analytical pilot study; development of experimental design;

' design and fabrication of stimuli; data analysis and interpre-tation; and preparation of test report. ,

Responsible for the organization, management, and quality con-

- trol of human factors engineering test and evaluation activities for missile systeme at Whitt Sands Missile Range; electronic and communications systems at Army Electronic Proving Ground (Ft.

l. "

L Huachuca); and aviation materiel at AAVNDTA (Ft. Rucker).

Responsibilities include: development and review of test plant;

-conduct and review of technical activities; preparation of test schedules; and allocation of personnel and resources.

- Conducted an effort to develop human engineering criteria for modern control and display components to be used in updating i MIL-STD-1472. Responsibilities included: development of pro-gram plan, data collection, analysis, and interpretation; and l preparation of final report.

L . -

Research Scientist - Principal investigator for human factors evaluation of the Communications Nodal Control Element -

i . (CNCE) of the Tactical . Communications Control Facilities ll (TCCF). Responsibilities included: development of the test r-L l

g w .,1._ r,. ,, , . - . , . .. - , , -, m. . .....,.,,om,...., ,,...,_,_,,,.,,,m,-m.,,_,..m _.,.mm ..-w.,,. . , . , ,

1 1

5 plan; monitoring and. evaluation of the T&E effort of Martin-Marietta (prime contractor for TCCF); on-site data acquisition;

,- . data analysis, including error likelihood and conformance to MIL-STD-1472B;' and preparation of test report containing design evaluation and recommendations.

Performed Test and Evaluation of human factors design problems in the Improved Hawk Missile System. Responsibilities included: '

preparation of the test plan; review and analysis of technical literature; functional and requirements analysis; development of operational sequence. diagrams and task analyses; on-site data acquisition, including: human performance data, T&E of specific equipment items and irterviews with operational and mainte-nance personnel; reduction and interpretation of data; drafting conclusions of subtests for final report. .

Performed Test and Evaluation of human factors design problems

, in the Beartrap Helicopter Recovery Assist, Secure and Traverse (RAST) system. Responsibilities included: developmunt and preparation of the test plan; review and analysis of technical literature; functional and requirements analysis; development of operational sequence diagrams and task analyses; on-site data

. acquisition, including: error likelihood analysis, T&E of specific equipment items and interviews with operational and mainte-nance personnel; reduction and interpretation of data; develop-ment of trade-off and evaluation criteria; development of alter-native console configurations; assisted in design and ct.nstruction of console mockups; preparation of final report.

Assisted. In the analysis of design ' requirements for aircraf t ,

. carrier catapult and arresting gear systems, and anlaysis

~

operator duties within the combat information center.

Participated in reduction, analysis, and interpretation of data

collected for a study designed to evaluate the effects of alternative taillight configuration on the frequency and severity

~o f rear-end collisions.

Participated in the collection, reduction, and analysis of data for

' development of a human factors design guide for Naval ship E systems.

1975 - 1976 GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY i airfax, Virginia 1

Research Assistant - Assisted faculty members in academic and applied research. Responsibilities included: experimental design, mechanics, and evaluation; collection and interpretation of data;. descriptive and inferential statistics; handling and training lab animals; and working with adults and children in various experimental settings.

. . . . .. . . = . . . - . . - . - . . - . - - . . - . - . - . - . . - . . .- - . . - - -

9 Principal data - collector in a project to determine visual  ;

thresholds for computer-generated imagery for the Army Night Vision - Laboratory at . Ft. Belvoir. Responsibilities included:

administration of experiment; data' reduction; and, statistical '

analysis.

Teachina Assistant - Taught Statistics and Comparative Psychology Labs.

PUBLICATIONS AND TECHNICAL REPORTS Eike, D. R., M' alone, T. B., Fleger, S. A. Human Enaineerina Deslan Criteria for

, Modern Control / Display Components and Standard Parts. Final Report under Contract No. DAAK40-79-C-0144.

4 Malone, T. B., Kirkpatrick, M., Mallory, K. M., Eike, D. R., Johnson, J. H., and Walker, R. W. Human Factors Evaluation of Control Room Desian and

- Operator ~ Performance at Three Mile Island. Final Report under Contract NRC-04-79-209, December 1979.

Eike, D. R.. Human Factors Evaluation of the Radiation Detector and Computer ,

Indicator. Final Technical Report under Contract DAEA18-79-C-0029, May 1979.

Talley, W. and Eike, D. R. Human Factors Evaluation of the Communication Satellite Ground Control Terminal (AN/TSC-85), Final Technical Report under Contract DAEA18-79-C-0029, March 1979. ,

Elke, D. R. and Malone, T. B. Human Factors Engineerina Evaluation of the

' Communications Nodal Control Element of the Tactical Communications Control Facility. . Technical Report under Contract DAAK11-78-C-0099, December 1978. -

i.

Malone, T. B., Eike, D. R., Baker, C. A. and Andrews, P. J. Human Factors

- Engineering Technoloay into the Naval Ship Acquisition Process: Desianina

for Operability.- Presented at the Human Factors Society Meeting, Detroit, 1978.

Elke, D. R., Malone, M. T. and Malone, T. B. Survey of Task Analysis Methods and Data Formats. Prepared for: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA.

~

[' Malone, T. B., Eike, D. R. HFE Technoloay for the Beartrap LSO Console. Final Report under Contract N00024-76-C-6129, June 1978. -

Malone, T. B., Kohl, J. S., Eike, D. R. and Shields, N. L. Human Factors Enc.1-Eneerina Evaluation of the Improved HAWK with Product Improvements. Final Report under Contract DAAD07-C-0092, August 1977 r

Elke, D. R., Allen, J. A. Pre-exposure of Dull Versus Complex Stimuli: Imp-

. lications for the Adult-Child Anomaly in the Latent inhibition Studies.

Presented at the Easter Psychological Association Meeting Boston,1977.

f

.------.~..-,-.-_..,,-.--w,u--,.,,-s.v.,*w -

,.-.,.,w,. ~ - , - ,,,,,,..,-.,vs.,---y. m-,,,,vr-wne-

l l

WALTER T. TALLEY EDUCATION:

1977 M.S. - Applied Psychology, Stevens Institute of Technology 1974 B.A. - General Experimental Psychology, New Mexico State University 1972 A.A. - Arts and Sciences, New Mexico State University Military Training in Electronics:

1962 Refresher Course in Electronic Fundamentals

.1960 Radar Fire Control and Bombing Computer Systems, Republic Aviation Corporation 1955 Radar Fire Control and Bombing Systems EXPERIENCE: q December 1978 - ESSEX CORPORATION Present Alexandria Virginia September 1981 - Manager, Systems Analysis Branch, Process Control Systems Present Department - Provide management and technical direction for conduct of all systems analysis projects for the PCS Department.

Have primary technical responsibility for the adaption and development of applied methodology. Serve as technical resource for the development of human factors criteria for specific assessment applications. Responsible for the technical review of client deliverables.

Provide management review in concert with other branch managers of project plans, technical scope, and resource esti-mates for the PCS Department projects.

As branch manager, supervise human factors specialists assigned to the. Systems Analysis Branch. Assign appropriate personnel to client projects, as needed. Develop solicited and unsolicited proposals for new and existing clients.

Project Director for major procedures development and pro-duction project for South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G)

Company's V. C. Summer Nuclear Station (NTOL). Initial project involved rewriting and reformatting all emergency, abnormal, general, and standard operating procedures. As a result of the project team's performance, an additional project was awarded for the development and production of approximately 300

surveillance / test procedures. _ Developed the project plan and technical work scope for the coordinated rewrite, reformat, technical review, editing, and production of these procedures.

Work involved the development of an integrated project. team

. and its functions. Team members included Essex and SCE&G operations specialists, procedures writers, editors, and word processors.

Project Director for SCE&G's V. C. Summer Nuclear Station control room backfit project. Work involved technical and managerial support to the assigned project staff for a year-long effort to incorporate human factors tsquirements into the control room such as _ component relocation, display scale redesigns, labeling content and locations, demarcation and mimic requirements, and environmental concerns.

Project Director for Baltimore Gas and Electric (BG&E)

Company's Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant control _ room human factors evaluation. Provided technical support and

~ managerial direction to the Project Manager and project staff.

' At Raleigh, North Carolina, Project Manager for a human factors engineering evaluation contract with Carolina Power and Light Company. Directed the work of one Research Scientist, three Research Associates, one Research ; Assistant and one-contract consultant in the human factors engineering evaluation of four nuclear power plant control rooms (three existing and one under construction). Duties consisted of the planning and coordination of all contract activities which included scheduling between two Essex offices and three customer field locations; the development of evaluation plans which incorporated modified existing procedures and newly developed procedures tailored to this particular customer's requirements; and general customer interface activities such as conduct-of monthly project review meetings, submittal of monthly progress reports, and the development and planning of special studies. Also responsible for the development of all final reports for the evaluation and the development and delivery to the customer of comprehensive evaluation files which serve as a detailed record of the total contract performance.

At White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, responsible for the conduct of the human factors engineering evaluation 'of the U.S.

Army Patriot Air Defense System. Directed the work of one Research Associate in the development of a detailed test plan, various interim reports and new field evaluation techniques and procedures applied to the Patriot System testing. Performed the first non-supplier safety study on the Patriot System and produced the Interim Safety Release Study Report which was essential for the continued evaluation of the system.

f' d

~ A- w w - , N.

(-  ;

I i

At Fort Hauchuca, Arizona, as a. member of "the Essex quick-response team, assisted in the . initial contract phases .of U.S.  ;

Army . Communications System Test and Evalue$n projects.

' Duties consisted of the performance of human ctors engi-neering evaluations of current and prototype communications equipment and satellite telecommunications systems. Collected

-and evaluated human performance, environmental, and hardware

- data. Wrote final reports concerning the compliance of various equipment to existing military h'uman factors specifications and requirements.

As a member of the Essex human factors staff, analyzed work

' performance data and developed a summary report for the AT&T Company's Human Performances Laboratory concerning cor-rective maintenance task times for. telephone company central office switchworkers. Assisted in writing the technical areas of contract proposals for the evaluation of Army weapons systems.

July 1978 - ALLEN CORPORATION OF AMERICA November 1978 . Alexcndria, Virginia,1 (White Sands, New Mexico)

Senior Human Factors Enaineer - As the project manager of 'the Corporation's White Sands Office, directed the work of two Senior and one Junior Human Factors Engineers, and one _

Secretary / Clerk. Work consisted of Human Factors evaluation'

> of current and prototype U.S. Army Weapons systems. Test plans were developed which established the methodology and .

scheduling of complete heman factors evaluations of operation, maintenance and transportability for tactical and strategic weapons. .

September 1' 974 - BELL TELEPHONE LABORATORIES ,

June 1978 - Piscataway, New Jersey.

1 _

Member of Technical Staff -1 As a member of computer sof tware development groups, developed specifications for the human 1 Interface requirements of large computer-based data manage-ment systems. used throughout the Bell Telephone System.

Designed and implemented the specific human interface func-tions from the aforementioned requirements. Developed the l>

performance standards and operational (human performance)

, definitions of the functional allocation's for both the human and ' q

. the machine in these software systems. '

. May 1971 - DYNALECTRON CORPORATION '

i~ . August 1974 Land-Air Division White Sands Test Facility - NASA Las Cruces, New Mexico

• l >

Electro / Mechanical Desianer - Developed various new designs and modifications to existing designs for facilities, structures,

(.

t:

s , , . . .& ~ lr , ,,...,,,.+-,-,.,.,,,,..,n ,r, ,,, , , , , , . , , , , , , _ , , , - . , ~ . , , , , , , . , , . , , , , --,<n.,.n.,_-+, w_,,n__,

and equipment used for destructive and nundestructive materials testing. Produced structural, mechanical, and electrical designs on the modifications to cyrogenic storage and pumping systems.

Also produced ' drafted drawings and technical illustrations to NASA standards for use in' documenting the facility's config-

'uration and for.use in test reports.

February 1970 . DYNALECTRON CORPORATION April 1971 - Land-Air Division Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico Medical Illustrator - Produced illustrations for publicatiens and technical reports. Illustrations were in the following categories:

Line Graphs, Charts, Cumuistive Records, Equipment Layouts and - Anatomy Drawings. Using autopsy procedures, produced preliminary drawings of thoracic musculature of the baboon.

Developed. comparative Sacrolumber, and lower trunk compara-tive anatomical drawings of the human, baboon,'and chimpanzee.

' September 1968 - A. G. SCHOONMAKER COMPANY, INC.

January 1970 Sausalito, California 1

Project Engineer - Developed all phases . of detailed design requirements for diesel and gas turbine powered generator sets.

i Set capabilities were usually in. the range of 5000 volt, 2000 kilowatt outputs. . Also coordinated total design packages 4 ,

including all mechanical aspects of the units. and developed

'- electrical requirements and cost -analysis for contract bids.

Electrical design details involved the evaluation of customer contract' requirements, translation of them into specific com-ponents, ordering the components and materials and designing y the . circuits, bus connections, enclosures, front panels and controls. Some technical writing was required in the area of 4 e maintenance and operating instructions.

2 September 1967 - ELECTRONICS CONSULTING FIRMS August 1968 - San Francisco, California Electronics Technician, Research and Development - Performed a broad range of technician / designer duties as a job-shop employee. Most work was involved in the build-up, modification l' - and checkout of production test equipment for testing missile guidance systems. Additional work performed in the construction and testing of U.S. Army field telecommunications equipment.

' August 1962 - DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC.

F August 1967 Santa Monica and Huntington Beach, California

. Electronics Technician, Research and Development - Worked in vehicle checkout areas at Santa Monica and Huntington Beach on the initial installation of the Ground Support Equipment for the Saturn SIV and SIV-B Space Vehicles. Performed scheduled

• -g. w -e sw-e r-e-q- e + .ygww -Ni ,i-e-1s- ,..my- p.-vvew---e*,gw. --gw--mymyev-g ,-w.w,y-g----ee-, ,q--w,-e,g-.-y----*www~-m

r.

/

periodic ' maintenance and assisted engineering in trouble-shooting, modification, calibration and functional checkout of this equipment.. SIV Ground Support Equipment was manually operated, SIV-B equipment was computer controlled.

May 1955 - UNITED STATES AIR FORCE June 1962

' Supervisor of Fire Control Section, R&D.- At the Fighter

. Weapons Squadron, Nellis AFB, Las Vegas, Nevada, had charge of five technicians in the Research and Development section. Work

-involved the design and packaging of R&D projects relating to -

the testing, modification and extension of Radar Fire Control and Bombing Computer Systems' capabilities on the then current fighter aircraft; the F-100D and F-105D fighter / bombers.

Rocket and missile systems which were modified and tested consisted of conventional 2.5, 2.75 and 3.25 air-to-air rockets, sidewinder '(infrared guided) rockets and the GAM-83 air-to-ground BULLPUP missile. (1961-1962)

Fire Control Technician, R&D - Worked in the Research and Development section of the Fighter Weapons Squadron, Nellis Air Force Base, Las Vegas, Nevada. Technical work responsi-bilities were tSe same as those listed above. (1959-1961)

Fire Control Technician - Maintained Radar Fire Control Systems in fighter aircraft at Turner' Air Force Base, Albany, Georgia. (1958-1959)

Test Equipment Technician - At the USAF Standards Labert._-,

in Chateauroux, France, worked on all phases of repair and calibration of general - and special purpose electronics test equipment. Designed and built test and calibration benches for new types of equipment as needed. Maintained bench stock supply of all necessary spare parts. (1955-1958)

PERSONAL DATA:

Member of Psi Chi, Psychology National Honor Society Member of the Human Factors Society Military Status - Veteran Enlisted USAF, June 8,1954.

Honorably discharged, June 7. A ~,2.

TECHNICAL REPORTS:

Talley, W. T.,' Haher, J., Farbry, J., Amercon, T. A., Beith, D. and Justice, T.

Human Factors Design Evaluation Report for the Shearon Harris Unit 1 Control Room. Essex Corporation, September 1981.

i I

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

. . . .n - - . .

Talley, W. T., Haber, J., Amerson, T. A., Belth,' D. and Justice, T. Human Factors

- Evaluation Report for the -H. B. Robinson Unit 2 Control Room. Essex Corporation, September 1981.

~

Talley, W. T.,' Belth, D., Farbry, J., Talley, E. M. and Justice, T. ~ Human Factors Evaluation Report for the Brunswick Unit 1 and Unit 2 Control Room. Essex Corporation, September 1981.

Talley, W. T. A Final Report on the Human Factors Enaineerina Analysis of the

- SHNPP Unit 1 Control Room Equipment Arrangement. Essex Corporation,

February 1981.

Talley, W. T. A Human Factors Review of the Proposed Harris 1 CR Radiation

,; Monitorina Equipment. Essex Corporation, November 1980.

. Talley," W. T. and Wenger,- W.- Interim Safety Release Study, Patriot Missile

- System, -Tecom Project DAAD07-79-C-0063, Essex Corporation, October

- 1979.

-'Talley W. T, . and'Eike, D. R. Human Factors Evaluation of the' Communication Satellite Ground Control Terminal (AN/TSC-85), Final Technical Report under Contract DAE18-79-C-0029, Essex Corporation, March 1979.

Talley,-W. T. and Aikens, R. C.- Human Enaineerina Report, Development Test II (PQT/G)-for the Enhanced Cobra Armament Program (Interim). Tecom-Project DAAD07-78-C-127, Allen Corporation, November 1978. ,

Talley, W. T. and Aikens,'R. C. - Human Engineerina Report, Development Test II (PQT/G) for the Llahtwelaht Launcher (LWL). Tecom Project DAAD07-78-C- .

- 0127, Allen Corporation, October 1978.

Talley, W. T. and Aikens, R. C. Human Engineerina Report, Development Test II

.(PQT/G) for the XM1 Tank System. Tecom Project DAAD07-78-C-127, Allen Corporation, October 1978.

4 9

.\. [

e f

E -- e -- . .v_,..__,r. ,-__m, , . _ , , _ _ _ . , _ , , , , , , , . , , , . , . , , , , , _, .

d A

>?

+ -

T.J.VOSS-

. EDUCATION:

'979 ABD - Experimental Psychology / Learning, University of Montana  !

~

'1972 M.A. - General Experimental Psychology, Florida Atlantic University 11965 B.A. - Sociology / Psychology, State University of New York EXPERIENCE:

November 1980 iESSEX CORPORATION Present Alexandria, Virginia

Researc'h Scientist / Project Manaaer - Directed the preparation ' of 3 plant specific writer's guides for emergency and abnormal procedures for Duke Power Company.: Mejor human factors engineering concerns were that writers be able to prepare procedures that maximize understanding and accessibility of information. - The format specifics were modified in accordance with client needs from either Babcock and Wilcox or

. Westinghouse. generic guidelines. The goal was to ensure that procedures would be readable, complete, convenient, accurate, and acceptable to control room personnel as recommended in NUREG-0899.

Performed an_ operability task analysis for St. Lucie and Turkey Point

- Control Rooms .for. Florida Power and Light Company. Assessed task performance capability, appropriate instrumentation inventory, plus g

~

- validity and human engineering sultability of control room functions.

Developed human . factored exa_mples of an emergency procedure to -

-demonstrate use adequacy during task analysis walk-throughs.

Validated format and constrained-language. usage in revised procedures at South Carolina Electric and Gas' Company's .V. C. Summer Nuclear Station. 'Also prepared a writer's guide for emergency, test, system, and general operating procedures.

Met with representatives of the Comanche Peak S.E.S., Texas Utilities Generating Company, to review,' verify and determine the seriousness of p

previously identified human engineering discrepancies (HEDs). The

> - meetings culminated in the selection of' appropriate remedies (backfits),

. or the justification for not backfitting specific discrepancies.

Project Manager for the planning and implementation of human factors enhancements to the V. C. Summer Control Room for South Carolina Electric and Gas. Ensured that as built modifications (Post-TMI, NUREG-0700) met -accepted criteria for man-machine systems.

Modifications included instrumentation rearrangements, system /sub- ,

t system demarcation, summary labeling, increased use of color coding,

. . relabeling ' of all components, and restructuring of many component parts, such as, indicator scales, switch handles, and annunciator windows.

V' l'&'

. - :a . - - .:-. -..-. - . . - . . . . . - -...- - , - . _ . _ - -- , - . - , - . . ,

o Conducte'd the preliminary human factors engineering evaluation for St.

Lucie Unit-2 Control Room. Later provided on-site consultant services

to Florida Power and Light during the Nuclear Regulatory Commission -

human factors engineering audit ,of the' St. Lucie Unit 2 Control Room.

The focus of both the E'ssex Corporation and the NRC evaluations was to prepare listings of possible HEDs to be . further investigated and addressed by the utility prior to licensing for fuel load. During the NRC audit efforts were focused upon answering on behalf of the utility,

' questions - posed by the NRC auditors particularly as concerned the-earlier Essex findings.

Reviewed - previous!y' identified HEDsL and proposed backfits for the Brunswick Control Room for Carolina Power ~and Light Company. The

' purpose of the review was. to validate, modify or otherwise-disposition the discrepancy documents prior to final presentation to the utility.

Research Associate - Assessed the aspects of control room design that might contribute to human error in the operation of V. C. Summer N. S.

Conducted a preliminary operability task analysis. Suggested potential

. remedies .to eliminate design deficiencies and improve the interface between the human operator and the reactor. system.

1979-1980' UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA' Missoula, Montana

Supervisor of Leisure Information Services - Supervised employees sur-veying recreational facilities and opportunities in Montana. Produced a Leisure Catalogue, and compiled leisure program materials.

1978-1979 - UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA AND MOUNTAIN WEST RESEARCH Billings, Montana

' Research Assistant - Bureau of Business and Economic Research. Con-ducted large research projects including one survey for the Northern Tier Pipeline; data collection, analysis and report writing.

11973-1977 UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA Missoula, Montana Teachina Assntant - Lectured, authored exams, wrote study notes, and assigned grades in various undergraduate psychology courses. ,

1971-1972 FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY Boca Raton, Florida I: Teachina Assistant - Taught Introductory Psychology.

,:1966-1971 NASSAU COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES Mineola, New York i

Caseworker - Helped clients obtain medical care and supervised several caseworker aides.

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

PUBLICATIONS AND TECHNICAL PAPERS: ,

. Baker, Cliff, Mosier, Jane, and Voss, T.J. Preliminary Human Engineering Assessment of

the Saint Lucie Unit 2 Nuclear Power Plant Control Room. - Prepared for Florida Power and Light Company, June,'1981.

iJeorling, Diane M.,~ Steele, Elliot H., Verdi, Angelo P., and Voss, T.J. - Human Factors Engineering Evaluation and Improvement of the Virgil C.' Summer Nuclear Station

' Control Room.- ~ Prepared for South Carolina Electric and Gas, January,1981.

Scheuer, Cynthia, and Voss,- T.J. Aversive Properties of Time-out from Maximal FR Schedules of Positive Reinforcement. The Psychological Record,1974,24,53-60.

Taylor, D.F., and Voss,' T.J. A Pilot Evaluation of Three Alternative Formats for Emergency Control' Room : Procedures. Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, 1982,43,235-237.

~ Voss,~ T.J.' Human Factors Engineering Evaluation and Improvement of the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station Control Room: Implementation of Phase I Backfits. Prepared for South Carolina Electric and Gas, March,1982.

Voss, T.J., Belth,' Dana, and McCafferty, Denise B. Writer's Guide for Procedures.

Prepared for South Carolina Electric and Gas, August,1982.

Voss, T.J., Taylor, D.F., Eike, Robin K., and McCafferty, Denise B. Writer's Guide for Emergency' and Abnormal Procedures: Catawba N. S., McGuire N.S., Oconee N. S.

Prepared for Duke Power Company, July,1982.

- Voss, T.J., Taylor, D.F., Elke, Robin K., and McCafferty, Denise B. Summary Report for

~

Procedure Writer's. Guide Project. Prepared for Duke Power Company, July 1982.

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS:

American Nuclear society

~

Human Factors Society Sigma XI,The Scientific Research Society SECURITY CLEARANCE:

Secret, granted by DISCO 4

l

. , a.- -

STEPI-EN ANTHONY FLEGER EDUCATION:

1980 M.A. - Industrial Psychology George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia 1978 B.S. - GAneral - Experimental Psychology Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia EXPERIENCE:

< Aug.1979- ESSEX CORPORATION Present Alexandria, Virginia Research Scientist - Served as project manager to prepare a program plan report to summarize the results of a nuclear power plant control room design review performed by Essex for the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company.

Performed a human factors evaluation of a CRT display system developed by Toshiba, Inc., for the Chubu Electric Company's Hamaoka 3 Advanced Control Room in Nagoya, Japan. The analysis involved a number of factors including the ease with which an operator can access task related information from the CRT system, the organization of information within a CRT page, organization among the CRT pages, and the operators interface with the hardware.

Developed generic human engineering specifications for the CRT display system of the Hamaoka 3 advanced control room. The specifications were primarily concerned with the structure and visual organization of information presented on the CRT- screen, specifically the format, layout, and coding of graphically and textually presented information.

Performed an evaluation of CRT formats developed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) for an advanced control room

. design. Developed and applied evaluation criteria for graphic and -tabular display formats. Directed the production of the draft final report and presented the results to MHI executives in Japan.

Provided human engineering support on Mitsubishi Heavy Indus-tries' design and development of an advanced nuclear power plant control room. Tasks included performing a preliminary anthropometric evaluation of the advanced control room's pri-

.t s

- mary console. Also, assisted in a study of Japanese control room operators to. determine their response expectancies and stereo-

types for various control-display arrangements. . Additional responsibility involv'ed writing ' system specifications including those. for anthropometry, sit-down consoles, and control input

. mediums for interactive process control computers. .

A's part of _ a contract for the - Electrical Power Research Institute, conducted a study to develop and evaluate symbols for use in nuclear power plant control rooms. Using the population stereotype technique, a representative sample of reactor oper-

~

- ators from across the U.S. were surveyed. ' Based on the results of the survey, a candidate set of symbols were developed.

As project manager for a contract with the Tokyo Electric Power' Company and the Japan Atomic Power Company, was responsible for conducting a human engineering evaluation of the Tokal-2 and Fukushima-2 Nuclear Power Plant control rooms.

The project involved evaluating the utility's improvement plan,

- conducting a human factors evaluation of critical components, L identifying discrepancies from human factors engineering

. preferred practices and evaluating their potential effects on plant safety and human reliability, recommending backfits, and critiquing conceptual ' designs for a computerized CRT safety monitor and supervisory console. These tasks culminated in a four-volume report which was presented to utility management during a two-week meeting in Tokyo.

Research Associate - As part of a contract for the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, researched various Safety Parameter

! ~ Display" System (SPDS) design concepts proposed by several nuclear utilities. The review . Included an analysis of the advantages and drawbacks inherent in each of the proposed methodologies, a recommendation -for a minimum SPDS parameter set, an evaluation of a BG&E candidate SPDS display, j and a human' engineering note on SPDS display design evaluation.

Worked on a contract for Nuclear Projects, Inc. to perform a human-factors evaluation of the standardized control room for the SNUPPS nuclear power plants. As an assistant to the project manager, was responsible for ensuring that the research effort was conducted in a timely and efficient manner. In addition to this-coordination task, other. responsibilities included data col-('

lection, data reduction, report writing, and results presentation.

Participated in the Mississippi Power & Light contract to per-form a human factors evaluation of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Plant. Tasks involved identifying human engineering discrepancies' and generating cost effective backfits based on empirically derived human engineering principles.

f

, - - . . ww e,y -y ,-,w ..,.,,.w--. yn-, , , . . .<.,,-...+r- .,-e,.u...

3 Assisted in the human factors evaluation of- the V.C. Summer Nuclear Power Station control room. Task'primarily involved

data collection and reduction.-

. Participated in the development Lof a Functional Analysis and Requirements Analysis toward support of a design for a Technical Support Center for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District's Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant.

- Assisted in and monitored the development of draft NUREG/CR-

' 1580.' for the ' NRC.

Responsibilities included researching

. - documentation, Ewriting evaluation criteria, . and validating procedural methodology in nuclear power plant control rooms.

Responsible for research support. of. contract to update MIL-

-STD-1472B, Human Engineering Design Guide. for Military Sys-tems, Equipment and Facilities. . Specific responsibilities involved reviewing the literature concerned with modern control display criteria; extracting information pertinent to the human engineering design aspects of -the various components; identi-fying inadequacies in the content of MIL-STD-1472B; and writ-ing provisions to be included in the revised standard.

- Research Assistant - In ' . fulfillment - of requirements towards graduate degree, was involved in various projects' at Essex:

Knowledge : of FORTRAN and PLC prcgramming with PL-1

- joined from undergraduate experience in programming allowed me to update - the FLAG system for the Naval Air Systems Command, a computer based prototype. for the tracking of aircraft deficiency. reports; assisted in the ~research of human factors design problems at Three Mile Island; and ct.nducted 'a ~

. literature search and wrote an annotated bibliography on Heli-copter . Night Vision Systems for the Naval Air Development

' Center.

' MEMBERSHIPS, HONORS, and MISCELLANEOUS Psi Chi Honor Society Human Factors Society.

Potomac Chapter of the Human Factors Society

- Computer . Science Technical ' Group of ' the Human Factors Society l

Completed a course entitled " Human Factors Engineering" given by the College of Engineering at the University of Michigan, Summer,1980.

, - . . . , . _ . . _ - , . - - . , , . . , . _ , . . _ , , ,._,r__.,, - , , , . , . . , , _ . ,. _m., . _ , . . , , _ .

N e

' PUBLICATIONS and REPORTS

~

Fleger, S.A. ' Stress and Human Performance

Air Traffic Control. Interactive session presented at the Human Factors Engineering Exposition, George Mason University, Fairfax, April 1979.

5 Elke, D.R.', Malone, T.B.,. Fleger, S.As and Johnson, 'J.H. Human Engineerina Desian Criteria For Modern Control / Display Components and Standard Parts (Technical

~ Report RS-CR-80-1). U.S. Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama,

- May,1980.

~ Mallory, K., Fleger, S., Johnson, J., Avery, L., Walker, R., Baker,' C., and Malone, T. .

Human Engineerina- Guide To Control Room Evaluation (2 vols.). Division of Human Factors Safety under NRC Contract No. 04-79-209, August,1980.

Fleger, S.A.' Human Enaineerina Desian Concepts For Group Viewing Large Screen and CRT Displays. Sacramento Municipal Utility District, August,1980.

- Avery, L., Fleger, S.A., Kane, .R., Krick, C.,' Kain, C., Bathurst, J., Baker, C., Malone,

. T., Price, L., and Mallory, K. Human Factors Evaluation of the Standard Nuclear LUnit Power Plant System. Standard Nuclear Unit Power Plant System, January, 1981.

4 Manning, H., Zich, J., ' Fleger,' S.A.,- and Carroil, B. Human Factors Engineerina Conceptual Desian of the Rancho Seco Technical Support Center Man-Machine Interface. Sacramento Municipal Utility District, March,1981.

Mallory, K.', and ' Fleger, S. . . Color Codina-1

Colors and Contexts (Essex Human Engineering Issues.1 (4)). Alexandria, VA: Essex Corporation, April,1981.

1 Kane,~ R.M. and Fleger, S.A. Safety Parameter Display System Desian Evaluation for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. Baltimore Gas & Electric Company, May,

1981.

i .' Mallory, ' K., and ' Fleger, S. Color Codina-2: Meaninos for Colors (Essex Human L - Engineering Issues.1_(5)). Alexandria, VA: Essex Corporation, May,1981.

~

Fleger, S., and Mall'ory, K. - Color' Codina-3: Some Practical Concerns. (Essex Human Engineering Issues.1 (6)). Alexandria, VA: Essex Corporation, July,1981.

Fleger, S., and Mallory K. Symbols, Words, and Human Nature (Essex Human Engineering Issues.1_ (7)). Alexandria, VA: Essex Corporation, August,1981.

Eike,: R.,' Fleger,- S., O'Donoghue, T., McCafferty, D., Boyd, E., Weiss, C., Kain, C.,

l-

. Piccione, .F., Baker, C., and Eike, D., Human Factors Evaluation of the Calvert p  ; Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 & 2 Control Room. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company,1981.

Fleger, S., Avery, L., Kane, R., Jeorling, D., Elliff, A., Justice, T., and Kirkpatrick, M.

l. Results of the Review and Evaluation of the TEPCO/Toshiba/Hitachi Control Room l

.. Improvement Criteria. -Tokyo Electric Power Company, Japan Atomic Power

, Company, September,1981.'

l

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

' Fleger, S., Avery, L., Kane, R., Jeor!ing, D., Elliff,' A., Justice, T.,' and Kirkpatrick, M.

Results of the Review and Evaluation of the TEPCO/Toshiba/Hitachi Control Room improvement Plan without Introducing New Computer. Tokyo Electric Power Company, Japan Atomic Power Company, September,1981.

Fleger, S., Avery, L., Kane, R., Jeorling, D., Elliff, A., Justice, T., and Kirkpatrick, M.

Human Engineering Review of the Computer /CRT-Based Safety Monitoring and Supervisory System. Tokyo Ele.ctric Power Company, Japan Atomic Power Company, September,1981.

Fleger, S., Avery, L., Kane, R., Jeorling, D., Elliff, A., Justice, T., and Kirkpatrick, M.

Task 1, 2, and 3 Final Report Summary: Evaluation of Proposed Improvements for Control Room Supervising Function and Supporting Function for Existing Plants.

Tokyo Electric Power Company, Japan Atomic Power Company, September,1981.

Fleger, S., -and Neal, V. Development and Evaluation of Pictographic Symbols for Nuclear Power Plant Control Rooms. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 25th Annual Meetina, October,1981 (Abstract).

Kane, R., Manning, H., Fleger, S., Farbry, J., O'Donoghue, T., Tulloh, N., and Grealis, L.,

System-Specific Specifications, Basic Console Evaluation and Human Engineering Library Bibliography for Advanced Control Rooms. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, December,1981.

Kane, R., Farbry, J., and Fleger, S. Response Stereotypes of Japanese Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Operators. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, December,1981.

- Kane, R. M., Farbry, J., and Fleger, S. Japanese Population Stereotypes for Nuclear

' Power Plant Control Room Operators and Engineers. Ergonomics, 1982, 2_5,(6), 5 552.

(Abstract).

Kane, R., Fleger, S., Farby, J., Harding, T., & Piccione, F. A Human Engineering Evaluation of CRT Formats, CRTs, and Keyboards for the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Advanced Control Room. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, July 1982.

Farbry, J., Fleger, S., Kane, R., and O'Donogbue, T. Human Engineering Specifications For the CRT Display System of the Hamaoke 3 Advanced Control Room. Chubu Electric Power Company, September,1982.

Farbry, J., Fleger, S., Kane, R., Harding, T., and Pilsitz, D. Human Engineering Evaluation of the CRT Display System of the Hamaoka 3 Advanced Control Room.

Chubu Electric Pnwer Company, February,1983.

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

4 DONALD J. SEIBERT, JR.

EDUCATION: ,

1981 B.S. - Engineering Technology (Power Plant System's Major),

University of Maryland, College Park 1976 Certificate in HVAC, Lincoln Technical Institute 1973 Boller Technician, Class A School, U.S. Navy ADDITIONAL EDUCATION:

Additional (35) credits in Human Factors / Safety Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park EXPERIENCE:

April 1981- ESSEX CORPORATION Present Alexandria, Virginia -

Research Associate - Performed various tasks for the human factors control room reviews of St. Lucie 1& 2 NPP.

Reviewed HEDs, prepared reports, and documented findings.

Also assisted in the labeling / design of annunciator tiles for St.

Lucie 2. -

Conducted various research activities for the Essex Corportion in the areas' of logistics, quality assurance, and communications.

Assisted in the HF reviews of Turkey Point 3 & 4 nuclear stations. Wrote and reviewed HEDs, assisted in mirror-image studies, and supported review findings.

Performed various tasks for the rewriting / formatting of operating procedures and assisted in the design /on-site construction of control panel demarcation for the V. C.

Summer nuclear power plant.

Participated in the on-site HF reviews of Commanche Peak 1

& 2 nuclear stations. Duties included HED writing, use of control room documentation to support findings, and assisting in label / abbreviation studies.

Participated in the on-site control room evaluations of Brunswick 1 & 2 nuclear power plants.

Assicted in review studies, wrote discrepancy reports, collected data, and designed HED backfits.

Jan.1973- UNITED STATES NAVY July 1975 Boiler Technician - Operated and maintained 1200 psi Boilers and their associated auxiliary equipment. Trained personnel for main and auxiliary room watch stations. Assisted in repairs during a major ship overhaul.

Jan.1972- WASHINGTON INVENTORY SERVICES '

Jan.1971 College Park, Maryland Inventory Control Specialist - Duties involved taking inventory, record keeping and the processing of data for various government and commercial firms on the East Coast.

. July 1971- MAIL EXPRESS CORPORATION Dec.1971 Ardmore, Maryland f

Machinery Operator - Operated mechanical and computerized systems required to ship bulk mail. Assisted in mechanical repairs.

MEMBERSHIPS:

Fusion Energy Foundation University of Maryland Alumni Association 4

e-- -- p , n-s- 4 - .m,-s. -,+-n,-,--,y-+,e. m o m,,-, ,een .-p+-- ep,e -gw,yy pwry

~

.4

. DALE L. PILSITZ EDUCdTION:

'1976-1981 . Senior . Reactor Operator License - Three Mile Island . Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 1974-1976 Reactor ~ Operator License - Three Mlle Island Nuclear Power Station Unit l'

~

-1973 Pressurized Water Reactor Training Program - Babcock and Wilcox Simulator,'Lynchburg, Virginia

'1971 Reactor . FamlIlarization Program - Penn State University Reactor Facility, State College, Pennsylvania 1969 - Reactor Operator Training . Course - Metropolitan Edison Company

(

EXPERIENCE:

Nov. 81 - - ESSEX CORPORATION

1. Present Alexandria, Virginia Senior - Nuclear Operations Specialist - Provide nuclear power plant operational expertise to support Essex human engineering services to the nuclear power industry.' Ensure practicality of recommended backfits identified by-human engineering analysis.

Currently directing system function and task analysis portion of detailed control. room reviews for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2.

Develop format - and -text. of Emergency and Operating LProcedures and provide technical support for previously written .

procedures. Reviewed human engineering deficiencies for

. Comanche Peak and St. Lucie nuclear power stations.

' Participated in control room design and control panel layout reviews for Comanche Peak and St. Lucie. Performed detailed control panel design layout analysis at a component level for

~ Comanche Peak' and St. Lucie Unit 2. Utilized P&lDs .to evaluate rearrangement of Comanche Peak Unit 1 control panels to facilitate mimics and demarcation to maximize operator efficiency in handling routine and emergency situations.

Participating in developing Human Engineering Design Handbook for Nuclear Power Plants prepared for Electrical Power Research Institute. Performing Systems Review and Task Analysis for Florida Power and Light Company. This includes

, the analysis of response selection and sequences of operator L Actions; evaluation of procedures and task performance capability.

L t

, , ,. ,... -- , + . , , ...-.-..,,..E..

. - - . _ ._m..._., ,,.....mm.. . . _ , , . - . ~ . - . . , - - - . . _. , ~ . __-_

1 2

/

Sep. 81 -- INSTRUMENT AND ENGINEERING SERVICE COMPANY

-Nov.81. Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania e Consultant - Provided technical support and wrote operational and emergency procedures for nuclear power stations. Prepared lesson plans for transient and accident analysir. lectures. 1 i

May 61 - GPU NUCLEAR / METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY

. Aug. 81 - Middletown, Pennsylvania

, Nuclear Shift Supervisor - Senior Reactor Operator, Three Mile -

Island Power Station,- Unit Accountable for overall shif t supervision and direction of foreman and production personnel in the efficient and safe operation of Unit 1 at Three Mile Island

' Nuclear Generating Station to ensure plant and system reliability within the guidelines of Plant Technical Specifications and the

' unit operating license. . Developed training courees and media for

- liscensed nuclear operator training, including identification of learning objectives, coursewares selection, conduct of training seminars and _ training effectiveness testing. Developed and reviewed all procedures and those changes to procedures involving -_ operations. Implemented changes dealing with plant problems. Responsible for ensuring that plant operations are conducted in such a manner that no detrimental environmental

, conditions arise, and that operations in no way jeopardize the health and safety of plant personnel or the public. Directed shift operation ~ during plant startups, shutdowns, and refueling outages. Assisted 1 in 'the recovery program following the

.- . accident at Three Mile Island, Unit 2. Assisted in planning operations and scheduling maintenance for refueling outage.

Nuclear Shift Foreman - Senior Reactor Operator, Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Station, Unit' 1. Responsible for daily on-shift supervision to ensure that the generating' unit is operating safely and efficiently in accordance with the technical

. specifications and the operating license. Responsible for sched-uling shift personnel' to ensure required shift coverage.

. Instructed personnel in the performance of their duties. Admini-stered Surveillance Testing program in accordance with the Final Safety Analysis Report required by the NRC. Coordinated all

, plant technical, operational, and auxiliary support functions during all phases of plant operation.

l.

I Nuclear Control Room Operator - Reactor Operator. Partici-

). pated in initial plant hot functional testing and in initial plant l startup. Developed format and text for Operating Procedures, Emergency Procedures, and Response to Alarm Procedures. Per-j; formed startup, emergency, and routine duties associated with operating the 870 MW Pressurized Water Reactor, including preoperational checkouts and -design modification drafting of p safety-related and non-safety-related systems.

Electrical Technician - Crawford Station. Performed assign-ments on electrical transmission and distribution systems at coal fired and oil fired units at Crawford Generating Station.

_, a_ ~ a  ; _ ,._ _ _ _. __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

4 e

JOFN E. FARBRY, JR.

EDUCATION:

. 1978 Ph.D. - . Philosophy, major area of concentration in Experi-

--mental Psychology, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri _

1973: - M.A. -

University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 1965- Bachelor of Architecture - Washington University, Saint Louis, Missouri '

EXPERIENCE:

1980 - Present ESSEX CORPORATION

' Alexandria, Virginia Research Scientist - Currently preparing guidelines and criteria

+

for the design of' main contarl panel component arrangement, panel configuration, and control room facility workspace project on a guidebook entitled Human Engineering Application'in the

- Design of Nuclear Power Plants for the Electric Power Research Institute.

- For Mitsubishi Heavy - Industries developed a population stereotype questionnaire for control panel components with results applied to stereotype specification for advanced control room (PWR). Developed voice-computer communi::ation .

guidelines to support interactive computer systems.

As project engineer' for contract with the Japan Atomic Power Company: evaluated proposed and existing radweste control panels for boiling water reactor unit; prepared design of new component arrangements for two of the proposed .radwaste systems.

Performed human factors design and evaluation of main control panel arrangement for. pressurized water reactor for Carolina i - Power. .and Light; evaluated components, component

. arrangement, on main control panel for boiling water reactor and prepared label backfit supplement.

1978 - 1980 HELLMUTH, OBATA, AND KASSABAUM, INC.

Saint Louis, Missouri Architectural Draftsman /Research -

Commerical structures:

- preparation of construction documents, statistical research on firms distribution of manpower across different building types.

Client contact, coordination with structural and mechanical engineers, code analysis.

J N

=$.=- - - *, a+ = .- 9 --r-, wy- , ,yc, ,c-----.-,y ,,-vw.-.-y-. - - = ,,,,-r ,w ,y-+-,,- --%ng, , ,e.er-,-,wm,---f ,

~1977 - 1978 i CHINN AND ASSOCIATESL Columbia, Missourl Architectural ' Draf tsman - Commercial and residential

!= . structures:_ preparation of construction documents, coordination with structural and mechanical engineers.

1976 - 1977: .~STEPHENS COLLEGE -

Columbia, Missouri T Instructor'- Department of Psychology. Full responsibility for P six courses in Basic Psychology and courses in Psychobiology and the Psychology of Language. Also, student advising and staff seminar participation.

-1974 - 1976- MID-MISSOURI MENTAL HEALTH CENTER Columbia, Missouri

, _ Research Assistant - Coordinated medical, research, and tech-

- nical staff for psychological research on stress in hospital patients receiving a difficult examination (endoscopy). Also recording'of polygraph data before and during examination, pre-t.. and post-patient interviews, data reduction / preliminary analysis, t library research, and assistance with the preparation of a variety of journal articles.

1973 - 1974 CHINN,-DARROUGH, AND COMPANY Columbia, Missouri Architectural Draftsman -- Commercial and residential structures: preparation of construction documents, coordination with structural and mechanical engineers.

!1973 - UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI ~

Columbia, Missouri Teaching Assistant - Architectural Design II and Delineation.

1969 - 1973- UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-Columbia, Missourl

Teachina Assistant - Department of: Psychology. General Experimental- Psychology (Laboratory Instructor); General I Psychology (Course Coordinator, Discussion Leader); and

~

Research Methods, The Senses, Applied Psychology (Assistant).

1969 - 1971~  ; UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI Columbia, Missouri Research Assistant - Department of Psychology. Design of 9taphic. stimuli (face components) for automated display, data

collection, and assistance with the writing of journal articles.

,-y .e- , - . - - - -+w- . + - , _ , , - . , , - . . , r-- y.., _ . , ,,,-.%,.w,- ,-..~,,_-_mn.-r-:. . _ ,..r-,y,._.: . , - _ _,

I 1966 - 1968- HELLMUTH, OBATA, AND KASSABAUM, INC.

Saint Louis, Missouri Architectural Draftsman - Commercial structures: preparation

~

of construction documents. -

l1965' A.L. AYDELOTT AND ASSOCIATES -

. Memphis, . Tennessee Architectural Draftsman - Commercial structures: preparation of construction documents.

4

~

~ TECHNICAL REPORTS: -

.- Kane, R., Farbry, J. Jr.,-& Fleger, S. Response stereotypes of Japanese nuclear power plant control room operators.- Study for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, December 1981.-

Farbry, J.: Jr., & Strong A. Human. factors evaluation report on the Tsuruga Number One New Radwaste Control Room. Final report prepared for the

- Japan Atomic Power Company, September 1981.

! Farbry, J. Jr. Label backfit supplement BSEP 1 and BSEP 2. Prepared for Carolina

' Power and Light, September 1981.'

Talley, .W., Beith, D., Farbry, J. Jr., Talley, E., & Justice, T. Human factors evaluation report for the Brunswick Unit 1 and Unit 2 Control Room. . Final Report prepared for Carolina Power and Light, September 1981.

Talley, W., Haher, J., Farbry, J. Jr., Amerson, T.,' Beith, D., and Justice, T. : Human -

. factors design evaluation report-for the Shearon Harris Unit I control room.

Final report prepared for Carolina Power and Light, September'1981.

' AFFILIATIONS:

American Psychological ~ Association PUBLICATIONS:

Farbry, J., Jr., Harding, T., & Mallory, K. Control-display integration on large,

- multi-system control panels. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 25th

- Annual Meetina. Rochester, New York 1981.

Farbry, J.E., Jr. Evaluative persistence: Salt from the evaporative forgetting process. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1979, 39 (No. 8), 4068 B.

' Marx, M.H., Witter, D.W., and Farbry, J. Greater repetition of errors under performance compared to observation in multiple-choice human learning.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1973, 37, 949-950.

' Shipley, R. H., Butt, J.H., Farbry, J. and Horwitz, B. Psychological preparation for

- endoscopy. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 1977, 24, 9-13.

Shipley, R. H., Butt,-J.H., Horwitz, B. and Farbry, J. Preparation for a stressful medical procedure: Effect of amount of stimulus ' preexposure and coping

.styie. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1978, 46, 499-507.

Witter, D.W., Marx, M.H., and . Fa-bry, J. Long-term persistence of response-repetition tendencies based on performance or observation. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1978, 8_, 65-67.

Farbry, J.E., Jr., Geen, R.G., and Hays, D.G. Trait Anxiety and induced muscle tension in verbal problem solving. Unpublished manuscript.

PRESENTATIONS:

Farbry, 'J.E., Jr. ' Eva'uative l persistence: A long term memory for first

' impressions. Paper presented at the convention of the American Psychological Association, Montreal, September 1980.

Shipley, R.H., Bott, J.H., Horwitz, and Farbry, J.E. Videotape preparation for a stressful medical procedure: Effects of number of exposures. Paper presented at he meeting of the Association for Advancement of Behavior

' Therapy, New York City, December 1976.

V

. - DENISE B. McCAFFERTY EDUCATION:

1980 . M.A.~ .

- Psychology, University of West Florida

.1977. - B.A. - . Psychology, University of West Florida 4

1975 A.A. - - Edison Community College PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS:

~ Human Factors Society, Member .

Technical Interest Group: Industrial Ergonomics EXPERIENCE:

-1980 - ESSEX CORPORATION Present Alexandria, Virginia Research Scientist - Conduct various evaluation and design projects for operating and near-term operating licensed nuclear facilities. Specific activities' extend to:

Managing the preparation of a Program Plan Summary Report in

. - response to NUREG-0737 'and complying with guidance set forth by NUREG-0700 and NUREG/CR-1580.

Review of alarm system design for human factors concerns using criteria set forth in NUREG-0700, NUREG/CR-1580, MIL-STD-1472C, and other human engineering resources. Assess read-(< ability,' maintainability functional group, control station layout and design logic, and audible' characteristics.

Directed annunciator system redesign for readability via stand-

. ardized presentation . of . messages. Specified character and window dimensions. Provided summary labels for annunciator

~ groupings. Constructed prioritization scheme based on alarm importance to public and plant safety.

Bared on review of current abbreviations used on panels, annun-cla. ors, control . wiring diagrams, piping and instrumentation diagrams and procedures, developed plant specific dictionaries of acronyms and abbreviations. These dictionaries were used for

- control board and annunciator relabeling.

Performed initial design for demarcation and hierachical labeling scheme for control panel.

- - e- o- , w- , -- +- .- r#-,v-yr- v-c. . .,u.--. , , - - - . . .,-...,e .

~-,,,,--.,--,,-r- e, -- --, , , --.e,--y , -e-e-. ~ -,c.-re-,-- . ---#.

i Participated in Electric Power Research Institute's workshop for ,

Human Factors Design in Nuclear Power Plants. Assisted l nuclear power personnel in developing and applying human engi-  ;

neering tools to hardware design.  !

Using in part NUREG-0899, NUREG-0737, and Generic Letter 82-33, produced Procedure Writers Guides for Emergency and Abnormal Procedures for each of three multiunit stations.

Guides addressed methods for translating technical information into a consistent, usable, accurate set of procedures.

Participated in a procedure rewriting / reformatting effort. This effort encompassed all emergency, off normal, system and general operating procedures for a near-term operating licensed facility.

Generated detailed human engineering test plans and checklists for evaluating control room compliance with NUREG-0700 guidelines. - Where necessary, step-by-step methodologies were outlined for such evaluation. Produced similar materials for fossil . fuel application using this and other human factors sources.

Designed a job performance aid to be used by nuclear power plant operators as an additional means of assessing plant con-

-ditions in the event of a Safety Parameter Display System failure. The form was set up for recording readings, monitoring trends of major safety parameters.

Reviewed fire protection system shared by two units. Panel layout, system operability, and corresponding procedure manual were assessed. Proposed a new design to meet information requirements of the operator.

Evaluated current and proposed design of a two unit shared control room annunciator system. Documented alarm response procedure for each annunciation. Evaluation included prioriti-zation, localization, diagnostics, coding, nuisance alarms, and system logic. Participated in redesign of window layout based on control-display-alarm arrangements.

l Conducted real time walk-throughs of emergency operating actions using plant-specific simulators for two utilities.

Assessed procedure effectiveness, validated, and verified opera-tor action sequences. Developed human factors guidelines for the reformatting of procedures. Based on walk-through assess-ment and format guideline, rewrote each set of emergency procedures.

Other projects included control board evaluations and backfits; producing detailed specifications of human engineering require-l ments for controls, alarm systems, and labels Conducted special l

. ,.J. .-. _,.

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

s studies of mirror imaging, stress and specific task degradation, job performance aids, presentation of procedures, and flow -

charting of procedures.

- 1979 - 1980 NAVAL AEROSPACE MEDICAL RESEARCH LABORATORY

. DETACHMENT ,

-New Orleans, Louisiana ,

~

i l Research Psychologist -Involved in the formulation of u,,.eri -

mental hypotheses used in the design of research. Collaborated in the creation of repeated measures studies dealing with human performance in unusual environmente. Collected, analyzed, and interpreted data resulting from experimental studies. >

+

Specific projects included scoring and statistical analysis of data collected from a 15-day ~ administration of the Kit of Factor i Referenced Cognitive Tests' Hidden Words and Word Beginnings subtests, repeated administration of various ATARI video games

to human subject . volunteers,. designing a repeated measures evaluation of.well-known intelligence and aptitude tests, statis-tical factor analysis of data collected on auditory digit span and

. ATARI video game tasks.

Also adminis_tered a 15-day auditory digit span task to a group of

- volunteers. All sixty 15-minute subtests were generated ~ and then tape-recorded. Collected data were analyzed using analysis of variance and correlation techniques and resulted in a research

= report. Conducted further auditory digit span tasks using the Wechsler and adaptive, staircase methods.

1978 - 1979 NAVAL AEROSPACE MEDICAL RESEARCH LABORATORY '

Pensacola, Florida

.Psycholoaical Technician - Was in charge of operation, main-1tenance, and training of personnel on the Visual Detection ,

Simulator (VDS). The VDS comprised a GAT-1 trainer aircraft, an X-Y map plotter, a Supervisor's Console, PDP 8/e_' Digital

-Computer, Projection System including 28 slide projectors and 14

dissolve units, and 14 contiguous screens.

e 1976 - 1978 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER Pensacola, Florida 1 Graduate Research Assistant - Work included conducting litera-ture surveys, analyzing data, assisting in the organization and ~

development of - workshops, and' orienting personnel with the ERIC system. Analyzed and interpreted data on Escambia

< County's Residence for Youth Program, Children's Services Interagency Association, and Women's, Infant's and Children's Supplemental Feeding Program. Reviewed available Computer Managed Instruction Systems.

l

' PUBLICATIONS AND TECHNICAL REPORTS:

Human Factors Modifications to a Pre-Existina Alarm System. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 27th Annual Meeting,1983, in press. (with C. Baker)

Preliminary Human Factors Control Room Deslan Review of the Cofrentes Nuclear Power Plant. Alexandria, Va: Essex Corporation, July 22,1983. (with others)

Calvert Cliffs Annunciator Design Validation Study (Draft). Alexandria, Va.:

Essex Corporation, April 1983. (with C. Weiss)

HFE Assessment and Recommendations for Plant St. Lucie - Unit 2 Control Room Annunciator System. Alexandria, Va: Essex Corporation, December 6,1982.

(with others)

Operator Response to Problems in Process Control Systems. Paper presented at 8th Congress, International Ergonomics Association, Tokyo, Japan,, August

' 23 -27,1982. (with others) 1

. Summary Report for The Procedure Writer's Guide Project. Alexandria, Virginia:

Essex Corporation, July 1,1982. (with others)

Catawba Nuclear Station Writer's Guide for Emergency and Abnormal Procedures.

Alexandria, Virginia: Essex Corporation, July 1,1982. (with others)

Oconee Nuclear Station Writer's Guide for'Emeraency and Abnormal Procedures.

Alexandria, Virginia: Essex Corporation, July 1,1982. (with others)

McGuire Nuclear Station Writer's Guide for Emergency and Abnormal Procedures.

Alexandria, Virginia: Essex Corporation, July 1,1982. (with others) .

Issues in the Deslan -of Annunciator Systems. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 25th Annual Meeting, 1981,122-126.' (with others)

' Performance ' Evaluation Tests for-Environmental Research (PETER): Collected

- Papers (Report Number NBDL-80R008). - New Orleans, Louisiana: Naval Biodynamics Laboratory, July 1981. (with others)

Human Factors Evaluation of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Station Units 1 & 2 Control Room (Draf t) Volume 1: Summary Report. Volume 2: Task Analysis.

Volume 3: Alarm Manual. . Alexandria, Virginia: Essex Corporation, March l

1981. (with others)

Evaluation of the Escambia County, Women's, Infant's and Children's Supplemental

! Feedina Program: 1976 - 1978 Data. Pensacola, Florida: University of West

[ Florida.- (with P. Taylor) -

Behavioral Characteristics of Effective Teachers. National Teacher Corps

- Trainina Manual. Washington, D.C.: 1977.

l l

~

LAnalysis 'of Clientele Data for Escambia County Residence for Youth Proaram (ECRY): 1976 - 1978 Data. Pensacola, Florida: Education Recearch and Development Center,1977.

! Analysis of Clientele Data for' Children's Services Interaaency Association (CSIA):

1975 -1977 Data. Pensacola. Florida: Educational Research-and Develop-ment Center,1977.

Computer Manaaed Instruction (CMI): An Investiaation into Available Systems.

- Pensacola, Florida: Educational Research and Development Center.

.l_ earning Transfer From Trainina ' Device - to Ship-Mounted Cathode Ray Tube

] . (CRT). Pensacola, Florida: Educational Research and Development Center, F(Report prepared for Naval Training Station, Corry Field, Pensacola, Florida. (with B.R. Dunn)

. Student Activities ' Entertainment Prearammina Survey. Pensacola, Florida:

University of West Florida, Office of Student Activities,1976. (with J.

Prohn) t f

I 1.

L r

I o

4 I

l i

APPENDIX B OPERATIONAL / ENGINEERING SUPPORT RESUMES OF KEY PERSOffEL

_ HUMAN ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER STEPHEN M.'CUNNINGHAM

.Over eleven years-. experience?in Instrumentation and Control of

- Nuclear Power Plants..

~

EXPERIENCE: SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY TNuclear Engineering Department 1974'to present- . Senior Instrumentation and Control Engineer -

-Involved in all-aspects of' Instrumentation and Control for.the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station

' including design, equipment specification and

~

1 procurement,_ construction, licensing, startup, equipment' qualification as well as problem resolution and system modification. Responsible

- for.the main control board', HVAC control board and other control room panels. Coordinated the

~ - -

Human Factors Engineering Evaluation and Improvement of the Summer Nuclear Station performed by Essex Corporation.

1972'to 1974 ~ DUKE' POWER COMPANY Design Engineering Department Designed control systems for various systems in nuclear and fossil. power plants. Assigned to Oconee Nuclear Station for one year to assist in Construction checkout and system startup.'

EDUCATION: B. S'., Electrical Engineering, Clemson University, 1972.-

Professional' Engineer - South Carolina, 1977.

^

REGISTRATION:

SOCIETIES: Member - Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers.

-OPERATION SUPERVISOR

- Bruce C. Williams -

SOUTH + CAROLINA' ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY

~

EXPERIENCE:

1983;to' . Operations' Supervisor, Virgil C.-Summer Nuclear fpresent! ,

4 Station.(See FSAR Section 3.1.2.2.1 for responsibilities).

1980:- 1983 Shift 1 Supervisor, Virgil.C.-Summer. Nuclear Station.

6-80.- 7-80 Six weeks Offsite Training and Hands-on

- Experience lat North Anna Units.I and II, VEPCO..

-1980 . Nuclear Reactor ~ Operator,' South: Carolina Electric and GasLCompany, Virgil C. Summer' Nuclear Station..

1979 First Assistant Nuclear Operator, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station.

-1978' .Sencond' Assistant Nuclear. Operator, South Carolina Electric and Gas < Company, Virgil C.

Summer Nuclear Station.

s

1977. Qualified Engine Room Supervisor and Secondary

- Chemist:on a SSN 637 class submarine.

Responsible for ship alterations and assigned as.

~

Leading.First for' Machinery Division.

1975 1977- Qualified Engine Room Supervisor and Secondary Chemist on a SSBN 640 class submarine.

Responsible for Quality Assurance, Sub-Safe' Work

Requests,'and. records for' machinery division.

1973.-.1975 Qualified -Mechanical Operator Instructor at -Naval LNuclear Power Training Unit (S3G), West Milton,

, N.Y. Qualified Engine Room Supervisor.'

Responsible for training, maintenance, and

' records.-

Education:

4

.1973; Naval Nuclear Power, West Milton, N.Y.

Training' Unit (S3G) 1973 Nuclear Power-School, Bainbridge, Md.

1972 Machinists' Mete "A" School, Great Lakes, Ill.

1971. Georgia College, Milledgeville, Ga. B.S. in

. Biology.

J1968' Middle, Georgia College, Cochran, Ga.

1967 Baldwin High School, Milledgeville, Ga.

s ,

)' \

Bruce C.. Williams Operation Supervisor -T

- Page 2 Training:- l' J . S. Navy: Quality Assurance and Quality Control School -

Shaft-Line Components School ,

Steam Components School Diesel Generator School ..

- Supervisory Skills Training s

v South Carolina State ~ Fire Academy Industrial Fire Brigade Training

\

- Westinghouse Senior Reactor Operator '

Certification s Westinghouse On-Site Lecture Series for SRO Westinghouse Pre-License Review Series 4

1 m

'\

\

e 1

2 y + g u we-, s. .= ,. , . , -. , e , ,

' ^^ " ~ ^ ^

,~

"4 Y^Q

% -[

- t ..

1m

&- ,,,,3,7,, ,,c,,Ic,, ,,y,,g,

'.\' . ' .

~

-@ T..L. Wessner~

qi , i N (g<t .

"E'XPERIENCE: SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC'E GAS COMPANY Jkt. ~ 1980:to 1983~ -Lead Shift Technical Advisor, Virgil C. Summer

' A - . Nuclear Station. Supervisor.in charge of STA's

3 3 Jand Plant Operating Experience Program. A Lead 4

"g J/" Test 1 Supervisor-during Phase III.Startup Testing.

4f -Supervised and reviewed all Phase III Tests performed.on my shift which-included Cold Shutdown, Hot' Shutdown,.Zero Power, and Power:

C Operations Testing. Provided engineering support

'during Phase I Control Room Human Factors

%. p Engineering s,tudy.

+ 0 1978 --1980 Startup?and Test Engineer, Gilbert Associates.

as Assigned to=the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station;

• responsible for.providing engineering assistance L\( 'in test / calibration.of the Westignhouse process 4

'$ cf" ~ ' control cabinets, main annunciator systems.

't - , . WroteJI&C Startup and Administrative program

^

'"c s . procedures. . Reviewed'and approved final 3' acceptance test data. Assured that the plant _I&C a' systems complied to design. specifications and

~provided engineering 1 design support.

1977l--1978 .JEl'ectrical' Engineer,, Gilbert Associates. ,

Assignedito work as anLengineer for General Public Utility Corp. under the Site Management Group at-Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit j- 2, 954MW. . Responsible.for. verifying that all circuit wiring and cable in the relay room and main cont'rol-room met IEEE criteria for separation and cable support. - Coordinated and

' - approved installation -and design problems between the architect-engineer and contractor. Verified and approved that the solutions were within the

-design criteria, specifications, the plant ESAR and were held to a minimum cost to the owner.

1977 Instrumentation and Controls Engineer, Gilbert 4

~

Associates. Design engineering of control system-instrumentation including preparation of flow-4

. diagrams and logics for continuing services at Metropolitan-Edison's Three Mile Island Naclear Station, tinit .1, 871MW. Resolved design problems and provided design for nuclear power station process systems including the control room

boards;4 instrumentation process control cabinets; digital alarm systems and plant computer modifications. Engineer in charge of j installation and acceptance testing of new plant computer.

a v-

, -~s .a,. ll, ,, , ,. ,-a.. ~ ,n,-n...-m ,,-wn.,.-,-.n,----,.- w ,.--., ,.--.--,-+,m- -.,,.---.nn ., - ,,n-

- ~. . . . .- ... -. -- .. . - - .

k' t

e: ,i T..'L. Nessner

. - Lead Shift Technical Advisor Page 2.[y

~19731- 1975= The Pennsylvania' State-University, Electrical Engineering.

19691- 1973- Senior-Engineering Technician, Gilbert Associates.

Design of instrumentation and controls, prepared system' flow logics, wrote system descriptions, made

- wiring diagrams, developed and verified main annunciator system and other vendor supplied

_ equipment for Florida-Power's Crystal River, Unit 3, 855MW Nuclear Power Station and Metropolitan Edison's-Three Mile-Island, Unit 1,.871MW Nuclear Power Station.

. Educations-1975

' High School, Fleetwood, PA 1973 Bachelor of Technology -in Electrical Engineering, The Pennsylvania State. University TRAININGS.

1981 ' Station' Nuclear Engineer, Westinghouse Pittsburgh  ;

' Operations. Training Center 1977 Legal . Aspects off Engineering and Construction, Gilbert Associates, Reading, PA

~- '

1976 . Management Discussion. Skills, Gilbert. Associates, Reading, PA

. 1971 . Modern. Concepts of Automatic > Control, Engineers

Club of Philadelphia, PA s

1969 Computer Maintenance,~ Design and Application, Honeywell Computer Control Division, Lockheed Missiles.and Space Company, Sunnyvale, CA

'1968 . Theory?of Digital Circuit Design', Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, Sunnyvale, CA LICENSE:

' 1983 SROf-- Senior Reactor Operators License SOP-20109-1975 EIT -- Pennsylvania i

7 1

1

, e e.m%.

,,.7-- ..-w r.4,-.,.- ,m.,,, , , , , - ,w -r-,%,,...+_m w,-,- ,.wy.,,my,,m , ,-r-e,s e -, , we- ww. c, r ,- v r ee--., < , . +

~ _

INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL ENGINEER RODNEY E. STEFFY Two and one half years' experience.-as a control systems engineer in the field of~ nuclear; power-generation.

EXPERIENCE: GILBERT / COMMONWEALTH, Reading, PA

. '1981 to present - Control. Systems Engineer - Assigned to the V. 12. Summer Nuclear Power Station ~ Project.

Responsible engineer for various plant systems including;the main control board.

. Responsibilities include system design chant 3s Land modifications.. Performed various analyses l ,

and generated-reports for'V. C. Summer Nuclear

< Plant-includingicause and effect of induced electrical noise in. instrumentation and control cables,. cable , separation analysis for the main

- and HVAC control boards, and a balance of plant control systems failure. analysis report. . Field experience consists of;approximately six; months at the V. C..- Summer-Nuclear Power Station in Jenkinsville', South Carolina. Duties consisted 4 1mainly of resolving problems with false or.

nuisance plant alarms on the main control- board

'and addressing instrumentation and: control cable

' separation _ requirements within the main and HVAC control boards.

Additionaliduties were the involvemeAt with lFloridaLPower Corporation's Crystal. River Unit 3 p Project. ; Duties included the familiarization and L ' design-. verification of the Emergency Feedwater t'

Initiation Control design package. This design change provided the capability to. automatically initiate emergency feedwater action upon receipt of. pertinent plant signals.

' ~

Involvement'with the.VEPCO's. North Anna Units l & 2' included the< review of existing plant

' instrumentation to insure they met the requirements set-forth by NUREG-0588,

..IEEE-323-1974, and NRC Bulletin IE-79-OlB.

' Replacement?or modification of the existing C . instrumentation was performed as required.

Norden Systems, United Technologies, Norwalk,CT 1979 - 81'-

Electronic. Design Engineer _- Performed electronic 1 design and development of computer controlled

- utest equipment.used in the manufacturing of military electronic. systems. Hardware design T j g

,,~.

L

g I

Rodney E. Steffy Instrumentation and Control Engineer Page 2 consisted of the design of electronic equipment used for interfacing the computer with the electronic unit to be tested. Software design consisted of the development and application of the programs used to perform the tests.

Languages used were Basic, Fortran IV, and HP 1000 Assembly.

EDUCATION:' B.S., Electrical Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, 1979 Graduate Study in Electrical Engineering, The University of New Haven, 1980; The University of Bridgeport, 1980-81 Graduate Study in Business Administration, Albright College, 1982-1983 Computer Training Course, Hewlett-Packard Corporation, 1980-1981

,