ML20099B795

Control Room Design Review Implementation Plan

ML20099B795
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	02/26/1985
From:	NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20099B789	List: ML20099B783 ML20099B795
References
TASK-1.D.1, TASK-TM PROC-850226, TAC-51177, TAC-56139, NUDOCS 8503110125
Download: ML20099B795 (90)

Text

,P

+4_ . _ = 4 a 4 *-g l

! MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION I

UNIT 2 l

control room design review IMPLEMENTATION PLAN l88318$$2S!SSSlg6 a.--..-.--.-_._.. - -----:

NORTHEAST UTILITIES cenerai ortices semen su ei. senin. connecticui l co c..cou< o.o.ia cw l .im ssacens uec'ac == P O. BOX 270 HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06141-0270 k k J C I,C.N '".'I 5 ~~. (203)66s-s000 February 26,1985  :

Docket No. 50-336 A02959 A04121 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attn: Mr. James R. Miller Operating Reactors Branch #3 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Reference:

(1) 3. R. Miller letter to W. G. Counsil, dated June 14,1984.

Gentlemen:

Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2 Supplement I to NUREG-0737 Control Room Design Review Implementation Plan By Reference (1), the NRC issued an Order confirming various commitments made by Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) on behalf of Millstone Unit No. 2 regarding the implementation of Supplement I to NUREG-0737. This Crder requires the submittal by February 26, 1985 of the Control Room Design Review (CRDR) program plan and a schedule for the submittal of the CRDR summary report. Accordingly, we hereby submit fif teen (15) copies of the Control Room Design Review Implementation Plan for Millstone Unit No. 2. In addition, we commit to submitting the CRDR summary report for Millstone Unit No. 2 by September 26,1986.

A schedule for performing the various phases of the CRDR is included in the CRDR Implementation Plan. It is worth noting that, if this schedule is maintained, the CRDR summary report may be submitted as early as May,1986.

However, the September 26, 1986 date has been provided in response to the Order to allow for any uncertainties in our schedule and for the unexpected. As discussed in the CRDR Implementation Plan, we are relying on the Combustion Engineering Owners' Group (CEOG) to identify the operator's information and control requirements for a generic CE plant. We anticipate receipt of the results of the CEOG's efforts by August, 1985. Any major slippage in the CEOG's schedule coul significantly impact our schedule for the performance of the CRDR for Millstone Unit No. 2.

In accordance with Supplement I to NUREG-0737, no NRC Staff approval of this CRDR Implementation Plan is necessary prior to the initiation of the CRDR for Millstone Unit No. 2. However, we t ust that any NRC perceived major deficiencies in this plan will be brought to our attention in a timely manner.

Should you have any question, please feel free to contact us.

Very truly yours, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY ,

{ ,htW W. G. Counsil

, Senior Vice President f/e a( &

By: W. F. Fee Executive Vice President

MILLSTONE UNIT NO. 2 CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NUREG 0737, Supplement 1, requests all licensees of nuclear power plants and applicants for operating licenses - to conduct' control room design reviews. This is Northeast Nuclear Energy Company's plan for its Millstone Unit No. 2 plant.

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

The Control Room Design Review (CRDR) is a part of the ef forts to upgrade the emergency response capabilities within the nuclear power industry. The need to conduct a CRDR was stipulated by the NRC in Supplement I to NUREG 0737. The purpose of the CRDR is to ensure that the control room will provide effective and safe con-trol f acilities during emergency operations.

Consistent with the criteria of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737, th is plan describes how the following elements of the CRDR will be accomplished:

1. Establishment of a qualified multidisciplinary review team.

2. Performance of task analysis to identify control room operator tasks and information and control requirements during emergency operations.

3. A comparison of the information and control requirements with the control room inventory to identify discrepan-Cies.

4. A control room survey to identify deviations from accepted human engineering guidelines.

~

5. Assessment of human engineering discrepancies (HEDs) to i determine wh ich HEDs are significant and should be corrected.

'6. Selection of design improvements and establishment of implementation schedules.

7. Verification th a t selected design improvements will provide the necessary correction.

8. Verification that improvements will not introduce new HEDs.

9. Coordination of control room improvements with other programs such as Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS),

operator training, Regulatory Guide 1.97 instrumenta-tion, and upgraded emergency operating procedures.

The CRDR will be performed by a multi-disciplined review team of qualified individuals with a wide range of skills. The key members of the team ( re f e r red to as the core team) provide expertise in human f actors engineering, operations, controls engineering and operators training. Supplementing this core team are other individuals from various Northeast Utilities operations and engineering departments and consultants.

The following block diagram provides an overview of the Millstone Unit No. 2 CRDR process, starting with the preparation of this plan and concluding with a summary report.

To accomplish the CRDR we will perform a control room survey that compares the control room design with established human engineer-ing_ guidelines. The operators of Millstone Unit No. 2 will also be asked for their analysis (likes and dislikes) of the control room. A walk-th rough of the emergency operations tasks (Task Analysis--walk-through of each operating scenario) will be per-formed to verif y the presence and suitability of the instrumen-tation and controls in the control room. Any discrepancies (e.g., improper procedures, training, hardware, missing displays, etc.) will be identified, assessed, and corrective actions will be taken as applicable.

The recommended corrections will be verified to assure that they eliminate or mitigate the discrepancies and do not introduce any other discrepancies. The corrections will then be scheduled for implementation and a summary report will be prepared and sub-mitted to the NRC.

5N , b =:

s G

G N I

P F I E F A

T S

YT R

S I

A 1 R O KS 9P SY tE l

S R I I AL TA N P A O I E

M A

R S G N A O I I D T K A C

C I O F L I B D O N _

M O

- E T I TE N C Y NS &

W E A NW F S S R AL TU L EE D I

P I

T E S 'E T I D II ND N 'D I I V I I I I SH N R EE II E R RV E E C EE E R D PR D H SF E E

EC LS N R X I SO C A C G

I E N W I

A S i E M D E M P O O O L R E L V E

O D R

T N S O D C P S I

/

Y C E P I V I P R

U S

G N

I N

I I

A R

T

r_.

MP2 - CRDR l

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1 2.0 OVERVIEW 3 2.1 Purpose 3 2.2 Scope 3 2.3 Objectives 4 2.4 Description of CRDR Activities 5 2.5 Definition of Terms 8 3.0 MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING (REVIEW TEAM) 12 3.1 Management 12 3.2 Review Team 12 3.3 Consultants 18 3.4 Review Team Orientation 18 ,

4.0 INVESTIGATION PHASE 20 4.1 Operating Experience Review 20 4.2 Control Room Survey 25 4.3 Task Analysis 26 5.0 ASSESSMENT PHASE 30 5.1 Objective 30 5.2 Evaluation Criteria 30 6.0 CORRECTION PHASE 33 6.1 Enhancements 34 6.2 Class Improvements 34 6.3 Individual Discrepancy Correction 34 6.4 Documentation and Disposition 35 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULING PHASE 37 8.0 REPORTING PHASE 38 l 9.0 DOCUMENTATION 39 9.1 General Documentation Requirements 39 9.2 Review Documentation 40 9.3 Document Control 40 9.4 References 41

-i-

MP2 CRDR TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

SECTION PAGE 10.0 COORDINATION WITH OTHER ACTIVITIES 43 11.0

SUMMARY

45 (ii)

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Millstone Unit No. 2 Plant Arrangement FIGURE 2 General Arrangement of Control Room FIGURE 3 Control Panel Tabulation FIGURE 4 CRDR Project Flow Chart FIGURE 5 Project Organization

' FIGURE 6 CRDR Schedule FIGURE 7 Task Sequence Chart FIGURE 8 Task Data Form (iii)

LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A Resumes APPENDIX B Cover Letter / Questionnaire Sample APPENDIX C Human Engineering Discrepancies APPENDIX D Task Analysis HED Principles APPENDIX E Assessment Triage Methodology i

i I

(iv)

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

4 MILLSTONE UNIT NO. 2 CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Millstone Point on Long Island Sound in Waterford, Connecticut, is the site containing three nuclear power plants operated by

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO), a subsidiary of North-east Utilities (NU). The plants are Millstone Unit No. 1 (MPl)

! with a General Electric Boiling Water Reactor (BWR); Millstone

, Unit No. 2 (MP2) with a Combustion Engineering Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), the subject plant for this review (Figure 1); and Millstone Unit No. 3 (MP3) currently under construction with a Westinghouse Electric Pressurized Water Reactor. '

i-1 Millstone Unit No. 2 is a 2700 megawatts thermal (approximately 870 megawatts electric) pressurized water reactor nuclear unit which commenced commercial operation in December 1975. The reactor and its two coolant loop system were supplied by Combustion Engineering, the turbine generator by General Electric Company and the engineer-constructor was Bechtel Power Corporation of Gaithersburg, Maryland.

The Control Room Design Review (CRDR) is a part of the effort j within the nuclear power industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to upgrade the emergency response capabilities.

The need.to conduct a CRDR was stipulated by the NRC in Supple-ment 1 to NUREG-0737. While the CRDR is directed toward the i control room, other areas of concern [e.g., Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS), Post Accident Monitoring (PAM), Emergency Operating Procedures (EOP's)] that are interrelated with . the control room and auxiliaries are also addressed in this document.

f 4

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

nH ,

g rD I "rL r

~ -

,s

. -.~

.l l aM 1 -

m.,a, Y 's i

1 .,-

e

" V 1

a

=

.d

@3 r_

t n

e m

- _ e g

-7 n

- a r

I

&i, o-L y A r

g' D U t

- , - n

- a

. , -- 1; - l P

0 8

2

- .i o

~

- . l N l

t

=

m o

c

- R. l l

C i J

n

y{ I o

r *. _

Y I e o

n

c. t

=

- = =-

I"I l

s l

i D

d

=

, = -

- PQ .

1 e

r u

~

- - yg p .

d_,

_. e i

g

~

~

~

%w- _

F

'.= ' :: .

l

". =

ll

~

~ .= =

4 =

C. -

- g I

MP2 CRDR Page 2 The Millstone Unit No. 2 main control board's design has evolved from Northeast Utilities extensive operational experience (fossil and nuclear). Th roughou t its years of operation, efforts have continued to assess the plant control room with the objectives of providing a control room environment conducive to safe and efficient operation.

Guidance for the CRDR and related activities has been provided by the NRC in the form of various NUREG's and regulatory guides. A Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee (NUTAC) with staff support from the Institute of Nuclear Power Operation (INPO) was formed to develop a generic control room design review implementation plan f rom these guidelines. The purpose was to assist the in-dividual utilities in their specific plan development for the implementation of the CRDR. These documents have been generally used by NNECO, however, some of the specific guidelines have been modified for adaptation to this particular plant. The structure of this plan and the methodology for conducting this CRDR is similar to that developed and implemented by our Millstone Unit No. 3 CRDR. It also incorporates lessons learned from that CRDR.

Th is implementation plan describes how NNECO will conduct a re-view of the Millstone Unit No. 2 control room. Although it is not necessary to receive NRC approval of this plan before commencing the review, we anticipate that any comments noted by the NRC Staf f will be brought to NNECO's attention in a timely manner.

The schedule for the CRDR is included in Section 4.0 of this plan.

MP2 CRDR Page 3 2.0 OVERVIEW

, 2.1 Purpose The purpose of NNECO's CRDR is to ensure that the Millstone Unit No. 2 control room will provide effective and safe control facil-ities during emergency operation by:

o review and evaluation of the control room work space, instrumentation and controls, and other equipment f rom a human engineering point of view that takes into account both system demands and operator capabilities; o identification, assessment, and schedule implementation of control room design modifications that correct inadequate or unsuitable items.

2.2 Scope The CRDR will be performed utilizing the objectives and approach as provided in this plan, developed f rom the various guidelines and out ongoing Millstone Unit No. 3 CRDR effort. It is under-stood that the regulatory documents serve as guidance; not re-quirements or as inflexible criteria to be used by NRC reviewers.

They include, but are not limited to, the following.

NUREG REPORT TITLE 0696 Functional Criteria for Emergency Responso Pacilities 0700 Guidelines for Control Room Design Review 0899 Guidelines for Preparation of Emergency Operating Procedures 0801 Evaluation Criteria for Detailed Control Room Design Review 0737 Supplement 1: Requirements for Emergency Response Capability as Required by NRC Generic Letter 82-33, dated 12/17/82

MP2 CRDR Page 4 REG.

GUIDES TITLE 1.47 Bypassed and Inoperable Status Indication for Nuclear Power Plant Safety Systems, Revision 0, May 1973 1.97 Instrumentation for Light Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant and Environs Conditions During and Following An Accident, Revision 2, December 1980 The equipment to be included in the review will be controls, dis-plays, and other components on the control boards, peripheral consoles, communications equipment, ancillary devices, and pro-cedures that the control room operators would be expected to interface with during emergency operations. The hot shutdown panel will also be included in this review.

Figure 2 is the general arrangement of the control room. Figure 3 is a comprehensive tabulation of the panels to be enveloped by the review process.

2.3 Objectives To ensure that the CRDR fulfills its stated purpose, several objectives will be met during the review.

2.3.1 To compile all available criteria and standards used for design and layout of the main control boards.

2.3.2 To review relevant plant operational experience by conducting operator interviews.

. . - - - ~

g _.

L a a ... ,

g  : 3 -

8 --

s cv' b-

- .. , au -

5 -

s .

IlllllllIllI- + 9 M S Md + F- ~ -' ' t

.<- . a w , ,a.  ;

g w ;I e.3 /,,r,

.1

=g -

4 ir .i.i.i.tvi --

l acw*--- ]~,, g. M.:7' ".=' i E9'5 .

acma ]

/,h,*,,i. '

.g

+.,6 4

h s -

m

] -

11 'f x -

Cl -

e 3-: ,

e s.3 1 1 d,lli!

.. i si

= ,

/5 ,

e,--

]:- fj'.1;..

• 6 9 k

.  ! i.i :.. %.a

"'*i "

] f4 -ql .. .:. i 1-

"'*' " ]I

. _d!e

, 1 r  :

ir

--w2-f a '

e,T a , ,

, "" ,t, a v AC316

,, y .-A 1 - L M

(c38A- -

, ,,,J .. e t sa

>1 ,a L

vr >H.H . m' A* ,

g I

wa g

v i F,-d

""lL-b A. .

M i .

• N r, ,

@ u_ _s O CONTROL ROOM UM T N* 2

@ EL 36-E k Figure 2

I FIGURE 3 l

CONTROL PANEL TABULATION Main Board 1 (col) -

Engineered Safeguards Main Board 2 (CO2) -

Chemical Volume Control Main Board 3 (CO3) -

Reactor Control Panel Main Board 4 (CO4) -

Reactivity Control Main Board 5 (CO5) -

Steam Generator & Feedwater Panel Main Board 6 (CO6 -

Plant Auxiliaries Main Board 7 (CO7) -

Turbine-Generator Exciter Control Main Board 8 (CO8) -

Station Service Electric Panel C26 -

Fire Protection Panel C25A & B - Heating & Ventilating RPS Panels -

Reactor Protection and Nuclear Instrumentation Panels RCl4 - Radiation Monitoring Panels Panel C21 - Hot Shutdown Panel (Switchgear Room)

Panel C0lX - Engineered Safety Equipment (ESP) Status Panel Panel RC101 - Post Accident Monitoring i

MP2 CRDR Psge 5 2.3.3. To perform a control room survey that compares the con-trol room design with applicable human engineering guidelines of NUREG 0700, Section 6.

2.3.4 To determine Control Room operator tasks and information and control requirements during emergency operations.

2.3.5 To identify human engineering discrepancies (HED's) .

2.3.6 To determine the exten'. and importance of any identified discrepancies.

2.3.7 To dispose of any identified discrepancies.

2.3.8 To verify that the proposed resolutions do, in fact, eliminate or mitigate the discrepancies for which they ,

are formulated and do not introduce any new HEDs.

,2.3.9 To validate that the changes eliminate or mitigate the discrepancies formulated and that the control room operators can safely and ef fectively accomplish their functions durince emergency operations.

2.4 Description of CRDR Activities To achieve the stated objectives, several activities will be completed during the review. A flow chart of these activities is presented in Figure 4. The CRDR has been divided into six phases--planning, investigation, assessment, correction, implementation scheduling, and reporting.

The activities within each phase will be described in more detail later, but a brief synopsis at this time will help give a general picture of the review process.

MP2 - CRDR FIGURE 4

_ CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW FLOW CHART PHASE DESCRIPTION PLANNING DEVELOP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN I l CONTROL ROOM EXPERIENCE TASK SURVEY REVIEW ANALYSIS INVESTIGATION I 1 1 T

IDENTIFY HED'S L

ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OF HED'S m

CORRECTION DEVELOP ENHANCEMENT AND MODIFICATIONS IMPLEMENTATION PROVIDE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULING SCHEDULING m

REPORTING PROVIDE

SUMMARY

REPORT

I MP2 CRDR Page 6 2.4.1 Investigation The investigation phase will constitute the data gathering portion of the CRDR.

A review of the design evolution (i.e., bases, experience, documents, etc.) will be performed compiling the criteria and standards used for the design and layout of the control boards.

This compilation will be utilized in the survey and as consideration in the assessment and correction phases of any discrepancies.

The control room survey will compare the characteristics of the control room with the applicable human engineer-ing guidelines of NUREG 0700, Section 6 tc identify any discrepancies.

A survey of operating personnel will be conducted through a self administered questionnaire and follow-up interviews. The data obtained will be reviewed for their potential classification as HED's.

Task Analysis will be performed which will identify control room operator tasks and information and control requirements during emergency operations. The esta-blished information and control requirements and their associated characteristics will be compared against the available control room instrumentation and controls to determine any missing or discrepant items. Discrepan-cies will be documented as HEDs.

l l

MP2 CRDR Page 7 2.4.2 Assessment Phase During the assessment phase, all discrepancies identi-fied in the investigation phase will be evaluated and prioritized for resolution according to their potential impact on emergency operation.

2.4.3 Correction Phase Recommended resolutions of discrepancies identified in the assessment phase will include methods by enhance-ment, modification, and/or other means (e.g. , training or changes to procedures). The actions proposed to resolve HED's will be analyzed for their affect on operation. These HED resolutions will additionally be verified by their implementation on a full scale mock-up for final review and approval by the review team, NNECO personnel, and the CRDR project management. Discrepan-cies found to be non-significant will be documented for inclusion in the records of the review.

2.4.4 Implementation Scheduling Phase A recommended schedule will be developed to ensure the integration of proposed control room changes with other post-TMI programs, as well as plant operating status.

The schedule will take into account the training of ope rators imposed by pending changes. Administrative follow-up will be instituted to ensure the successful completion and validation of all control room changes.

The actual implementation will occur subsequent to the reporting phase.

MP2 CRDR Page 8 2.4.5 Reporting Phase A summary report will be submitted to the NRC at the conclusion of the review that will:

o Summarize the results of the review in accordance with this plan.

o Summarize the resolutions for discrepancies.

o Schedule the implementation of these resolutions.

o Provide reference data for the detailed documenta-tion material developed in the review.

2.5 Definition of Terms 2.5.1 Control Room Design Review (CRDR) .

A post-TMI task listed in NUREG 0660 (Item I.D.1), "NRC j Action Plan Developed as a Result of TMI-2 Accident", [

which discusses the need to conduct a detailed control f room design review to identify and correct design E t

discrepancies. Criteria for the performance of CRDR are {

provided by Supplement 1 to NUREG 0737. .l t

P 2.5.2 Control Room Survey l D

One of the activities that constitutes a CRDR. The control room survey is a static verification of the control room performed by comparing the control room instrumentation, controls and layout with selected human engineering design guidelines.

MP2 CRDR Page 9 2.5.3 Control Room Inventory A listing of all instrumentation and controls in the control room. Its function is to provide the basis to determine whether the instruments and controls needed to support operations under emergency conditions are pre-sent in the control room. This function will be accomplished as part of the task analysis effort and related verification and validation activities.

2.5.4 Emergency Operating Procedures (EOP's)

Plant procedures directing the operator actions neces-sary to mitigate the consequences of transients and accidents that cause plant parameters to exceed their reactor protection setpoints and/or other appropriate technical limits.

2.5.5 Emergency Procedure Guidelines (EPGs)

Guidelines for the response to transients and accidents developed by Combustion Engineering Owners Group that provide the bases for plant-specific EOP's.

2.5.6 Function An activity by one or more system parts that contributes to a larger activity or goal.

2.5.7 Function Analysis An examination of the required functions with respect to available manpower, technology, and other resources to determine how the functions may be allocated and exe-cuted.

MP2 CRDR Page 10 2.5.8 Human Engineering (HE)

"The science of optimizing the performance of human beings, especially in industry. Also, more namely, the science of design of equipment for ef ficient use by human beings."

2.5.9 Human Engineering Discrepancy (HED)

A characteristic of the control room that does not comply with human engineering guidelines.

2.5.10 Operator An individual who is licensed to manipulate a control or device; e.g., Reactor Operator (RO), Senior Reactor Operator (SRO).

2.5.11 Operational Experience Review One of the activities that constitutes a CRDR. The operating experience review relies primarily upon operator experience to discover human engineering shortcomings and f avorable aspects of the control room.

2.5.12 Review Team A group of individuals responsible for directing and enacting the CRDR of a specific control room.

2.5.13 Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS)

An aid to the control room operating staf f for use in monitoring the status of critical safety functions that constitutes the basis for plant-specific, symptom-oriented EOP's.

MP2 CRDR Page 11 2.5.14 Task A specific action or individual step that contributes to the accomplishment of a function.

2.5.15 Task Analysis The task analysis is a tool or method used to delineate system functions and the specific actions that must take place to accomplish those functions. In the CRDR con-text task analysis is used to review the individual con-trol room operator tasks and corresponding information and control requirements to allow successful emergency operation.

2.5.16 Validation The process of determining whether the control room operating staff can perform their functions ef fectively given control room instrumentation, procedures, and training. In the CRDR context, validation implies a dynamic performance evaluation.

2.5.17 Verifica*i,on The process of determining whether instrumentation, controls, and other equipment are present and suitable to meet the specific requirements of the emergency tasks performed by the operators. The control room survey is also a verification activity; a check of the control room equipment's suitability for use by the operator.

In the CRDR context, verification implies a static check of instrumentation against human engineering guidelines and operators required actions.

MP2 CRDR Page 12 3.0 MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING (REVIEW TEAM) 3.1 Management NNECO is a wholly owned subsidiary of Northeast Utilities (NU).

The CRDR will be conducted under the normal project policy and organization of the NU System which utilizes the services of the Northeast Utilities Service Company (NUSCO) for its engineering and operation functions. The scope of responsibilities and def-inition of major functions for the Nuclear Engineering and Operations Group is contained in Northeast Utilities " Nuclear Engineering and Operations Policies and Procedures Manual".

Figure 5 is the project organization in accordance with these procedures for this CRDR.

The ultimate responsibility for the CRDR resides with the Senior Vice President of Nuclear Engineering and Operations.

The CRDR project manager was selected, who in turn commissioned members for the review team in accordance with NU policies and procedures. This review team provides NU management the over-sight to ensure the integration of the project objectives and to fulfill the intent of the review.

3.2 Review Team The review team is a multi-disciplined team of individuals with the wide range of skills necessary to perform the design review.

They are responsible for planning, scheduling, and coordinating the entire integrated CRDR. The team includes members of NNECO, NUSCO, and consultants. Within this review team are the disci-plines that constitute the core team, the personnel dedicated to this project. This core team includes the following expertise.

MP2 - CRDR FIGURE 5 PROJECT ORGANIZ ATION Senior Vice President Nuclear Engineering & Operations W. G. COUNSIL Director Generation Engineering & Design Department G. L. JOHNSON System Manager Generation Electrical Engineering A. R. ROBY CRDR Program Manager T. A. SHAFFER CRDR Project Engineer Z. A. UFNAL I .

i i CORE REVIEW TEAM DISCIPLINE SUPPORT Z. A. Ufnal, Controls Eng. J. J. Heg. Operations Assist.

J. D. Becker, Operations Engr. P. A. Blasioli, Licensing Engr.

A. M. Stave H. F. Spec. R. L. Beveridge, PRA/ Safety Analysis M. J. Wilson, Assct. Trng. R. E. McMullen, Mechanical Engr.

Supervisor R. F. Lubben, Instrumentation Engr.

Consultants M. Parikh , Computer Serv.

N. T. Thomas, Electrical Engr.

'MP2 CRDR Page 13 o Operations Engineer (having SRO license).

o Human Factors Specialist.

o Controls Engineer.

o Assistant Training Supervisor Supplementing this core team as required are other disciplines including mechanical, electrical, instrumentation, and nuclear reactor engineering, computer operations, and licensing. Th ese disciplines are from various NU operations and engineering de-partments, and consultants. During the course of the review, any additional specialists (e.g., lighting, acoustics, etc.) required for specific tasks will be made available as needed.

The review team has been provided with specific support as a part

- of the charge for enacting the CRDR, including the following.

o Access to information (records, documents, plans, procedures, drawings, etc.).

o Access to required facilities, o Access to personnel with useful or necessary information (reactor operators, management, consultants).

o Freedom to document dissenting opinions.

3.2.1 CRDR Program Manager The CRDR Program Manager will be responsible for implementing the provisions delineated within this plan.

Specifics include the following.

MP2 CRDR Page 14 o Interface with upper management.

o Provide licensing liaison support o Ensure the review is conducted in a professional, objective, and timely manner, consistent with this plan.

o Select the review team's specific members.

o Provide guidance as requested and required.

The CRDR Program Manager's qualifications include a baccalaureate degree in Electrical Engineering; the supervisor of the Controls Engineering Unit of the Electrical Engineering Branch of the Generation Engineering Department; and ten years of experience in the engineering of nuclear units. He is also the CRDR Program Manager for the Millstone Unit No. 3 CRDR. His resume is included in Appendix A.

3.2.2 CRDR Project Engineer The project engineer is the team's coordinator. This individual provides the cohesive force for the different departments and consultants involved in the review.

I The CRDR project engineer's specific responsibilities include the following.

! o Provide team orientation.

l o Preparation of the implementation plan.

o Obtain training in selected areas, as required.

i

MP2 CRDR Page 15 o Direct and support day to day team activities.

o Identify the need to management for special-ists' support when necessary.

o Direct all phases of the review.

o Provide management with a regular status report of the team's activities and progress.

His resume is included in Appendix A.

3.2.3 Operations Engineer (Having SRO License)

This member of the core team is f rom NNECO and his expertise provides the operational f actor of the review.

His specific responsibilities include the following.

o Obtain orientation in selected areas.

o Assist in the preparation of the implementa-tion plan.

o Assist in all phases of the CRDR.

o Serve as core team member of the review.

o Provide the review team with the operational aspects and constraints in assessing the discrepancies found during the investigation phase of the review.

o Direct liaison with training and operations.

MP2 CRDR Page 16 His resume is included in Appendix A.

3.2.4 Human Factors Specialist (HFS)

The Human Factors Specialist, as a member of the core team during all phases of the control room review, will direct the team with regard to the human f actors guide-lines for the entire project.

Specific responsibilities include the following.

o Obtain orientation in selected areas.

o Assist in the preparation of the implementa-tion plan.

o Assist in all phases of the CRDR.

o Serve as core team members of the review.

o Provide the review team with the human inter-face aspects in' assessing the discrepancies found during the investigation phase of the review.

His resume is included in Appendix A.

i. Consultant (s) will be used where deemed appropriate j throughout the review process.

t 3.2.5 Controls Engineer (CE) i The Controls Engineer will assist in the identification 7

i of plant system design features and will serve as the review team discipline on the capabilities and limita-tions of c0ntrols and instruments. He will also provide t

MP2 CRDR Page 17

~

input to the team during the assessment phase of the review, especially when the review team considers '

proposals for mitigations of HED's.

His specific responsibilities include the following.

o Obtain orientation in selected areas.

o Serve as core team member of the review.

o Provide his expertise in the assessment phase.

Note: The Controls Engineer is also the project engineer, a normal procedure in the NU System for projects that f all within the responsibil-ity scope of the individual departments. See Section 3.2.2 for additional responsibilities and qualifications.

3.2.6 Assistant Training Supervisor This member of the core team is f rom the NNECO Millstone Unit No. 2 Nuclear Training Department. His expertise will provide the operator training f actor of the review.

Specific responsibilities include the following:

o Obtain orientation in selected areas.

I o Assist in the preparation of the implementation plan.

o Serve as core team member of the review.

1 o Provide the review team with the operator training aspects and constraints during the assessment and correction phase.

MP2 CRDR Page 18 o Direct liaison with training and operations.

His resume is included in Appendix A.

3.2.7 Discipline Support As stated previously, other discipline support will be utilized to provide their individual expertise as re-quired.

3.3 Consultants In addition to the review team members f rom the NU System, addi-tional expertise will be provided by consultants who will assist in the review. As members of the team they will provide input to all phases of the review through to the summary report.

3.4 Review Team Orientation Each member of the review team will bring his own in-depth know-ledge of specific topics to the team. It is important, however, that the team be able to conduct the CRDR from a common basis of unde rs tanding . The review team will undergo an orientation program designed to provide each team member with certain basic knowledge requirements. The purpose of this orientation is to acquaint each member with the other disciplines' perspective represented on the team--not to make each team member an expert in all specialties.

The orientation program will consist of the following minimum instructional areas.

3.4.1 Human Factors Orientation provided for the core review team will f amiliarize them with principles of human f actors and

,--r --,,,-+.m . ..,-.w- ~ - - - - -ma - - , - , , . , - - - + . . , - -,e--- -- v-e,---n,- - , - - - --

MP2 CRDR Page 19 their application to the control room design review.

This orientation area will be slanted toward those core team members who do not have extensive background in human engineering.

3.4.2 Plant Familiarization The core team members will receive plant familiariza-tion, consisting of a review of the available documenta-tion, the actual control room, and the plant systems.

3 3.4.3 CRDR Familiarization The full review team will receive a full indoctrination of the plan, the methodologies for performing the re-view, and their participation in the review by the members of the core team.

3.4.4 Miscellaneous During the course of the review, any other areas requiring orientation that are identified will be obtained to meet the needs.

MP2 CRDR Page 20 4.0 INVESTIGATION PHASE To achieve the objectives outlined in Section 2.3 and to explain in detail the activities of the review (Section 2.4), the follow-ing will constitute the methodology in performing the Investiga-tion Phase of the CRDR.

Figure 6 is the schedule for performing the CRDR, depicting the sequence and duration of major tasks.

This phase, the investigation and data gathering portion of the review, is divided into three parts: the operating experience review, the control room survey, and the task analysis review.

4.1 Operating Experience Review An operating experience review will provide information on potential problem areas in the control room by a survey of the Millstone Unit No. 2 operating personnel for their operational experience. Th is information will be utilized for the identi-fication of possible HED's on this unit in the other phases of the review. In addition, discrepancies identified by the Mill-stone Unit No. 3 CRDR will be reviewed, where appropriate, for potential applicability to Millstone Unit No. 2.

4.1.1 Review of Operational Events The NUSCO Nuclear Safety Engineering (NSE) Department reviews all Licensee Event Reports (LER's ) for Connecticut Yankee in Haddam, Connecticut, and Millstone Unit No. I and No. 2 in Waterford, Connecticut.

In addition, they review all Significant Operating Experience Reports (SOER's) and Significant Event

Y -

A -

M -

R -

P -

6 A -

8 -

9 1 R - -

A - -

M - -

B - -

E - -

F - -

N - -

A - -

J - -

C - -

E - -

D - -

V - -

O - -

N - -

T - -

C - -

O - -

P - -

6 E - -

S - -

e - -

r u G - -

g 5 U - -

i 8 A - -

F 9 - -

1 L - -

U - -

J - -

N - -

U - -

J - -

Y - -

A - -

M - -

R - -

P - -

A - -

R A

M W

E T I R V N /T O E S F O NR P R M I O I OO P O S S T IP U E O Y T N A TE S C R L N O T AR R G N A E I NE T G D N E L N M T EL NY N R I I OY A S C MU ER I C E N R RE SS E ED MA S S N E TV K E' R LE UM N

- A A P NR S SD R PH CM E H L X OU A SE O MC OU C 2 P P E CS T AH C IS DS I P L M

A

MP2 CRDR i Page 21 Reports (SER's) distributed by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) for applicability to the four nuclear plants involved in the NU system.

a NSE is comprised of a number of personnel with a variety of dif ferent engineering disciplines including human f actors and operational backgrounds. This provides for

a comprehensive independent assessment of operational events.

A member of the NSE, designated by one of two super-visors first performs an initial assessment of the operating experience data, (i.e., LER, SER, SOER, etc.)

to evaluate the potential significance relative to any of our four nuclear units. If any data is found to be "significant" relative to some or all of the plants, l then an in-depth study is performed and a detailed report is issued for company distribution. During the screening process , the need to interface with INPO, other utilities , and vendors becomes a common occur-rence. Routinely, we interface with INPO information ,

contact when reviewing SERs and SOERs.

As discussed above, NU has a comprehensive and indepen-I dent assessment of operational events. This mechanism has been in place for the past four years. In light of th is , it was concluded that a rereview of this material by the CRDR review team is unnecessary. Instead, we will' focus on the experience of the plant operators to bring to light potential problem areas over the life of 1 l Millstone Unit No. 2.

4.1.2 Operating Personnel Survey i

I A most valuable source of data on operational problems are the operators of this plant. The intent of th is part of the survey is to make use of the experience

MP2 CRDR Page 22 gained during the years of MP2 operation by asking selected operation staff about the good and bad aspect of the control room.

(a) Questionnaire Construction i

A self-administered questionnaire approach has been adopted. By this method the operating personnel can be questioned while still maximizing the use of their time and that of the core team. The survey will cover the following topics.

o Work Space Layout (Ergonomics ) and Environment o Panel Design o Annunciator Warning System o Communications o Displays o Procedures o Staffing o Training o Other Areas for Operator Comment A sample of the initial questionnaire is included in Appendix B.

Assembly of the questionnaire is being done so that each topic area is sampled completely in item con-tent. Suggestions for improvements in each topic area are solicited.

MP2 CRDR Page 23 A cover letter will be included which (1) explains the purpose; (2) describes the questionnaire and provides instruction; (3) conveys what will be done with the results; and (4) requests biograph-ical information.

(b) Questionnaire Distribution The questionnaire will be given to selected opera-tions personnel of the Millstone Unit No. 2 Opera-tions Department. At the time of distribution the recipients will receive a briefing by the Oper-ations Supervisor and/or a CRDR core team member.

The briefing will emphasize the elements discussed in the cover letter.

(c) Questionnaire Data Analysis After the questionnaires have been completed, re-sponses will be summarized for further evaluation.

It is anticipated that both positive and negative features will be identified by the respondents.

Positive responses will be recorded and retained for consideration in subsequent review processes (e.g. , as possible recommendations for corrective action to HED's).

Negative responses will be investigated further by the control room design survey and the task analy-sis reviews.

(d) Interviews Interviews may be conducted dependent upon the answe rs received by the questionnaire. The purpose

MP2 CRDR Page 24 of any interviews will be to clarify any unclear information obtained by the questionnaire and to ensure that all important areas have been ad-dressed. The interviews will be performed by selected members of the core team.

4.1.3 Design Criteria and Standard Compilation The documentation file of the design of the main control boards will be reviewed for all pertinent data (e.g.,

acronyms, abbreviations, switch type utilization, color standards, etc.). This data will be compiled and documented for utilization in the assessment phase and to a lesser extent during the control room survey.

During the assessment phase, this compilation will establish guidance for disposing of differences between the design criteria and the CRDR acceptance criteria to present a frame of reference for resolving human engi-neering discrepancies.

4.1.4 Control Room Inventory A control room inventory for Millstone Unit No. 2 exists in the form of the plant Bill of Materials and detailed drawings. From this inventory, the drawings, and numer-ous photographs of the actual control boards, a full scale mock-up was made. As part of the Task Analysis, a complete computer generated data base for all emergency-utilized equipment will be developed. Its development and utilization is discussed in the Task Analysis, Sec-i tion 4.3.

MP2 CRDR Page 25 4.2 Control Room Survey 4.2.1 Survey The control room survey, a human f actors engineering (HFE) review, will be a systematic evaluation of the Millstone Unit No. 2 control room using the criteria of NUREG 0700, Section 6, as referenced by NUREG 0737, Supplement 1, and other guidelines, as applicable to Millstone Unit No. 2. The survey will determine what items in the control room layout, equipment, instrumen-tation, controls, environmental conditions, communica-tions, and process computer are not in compliance with these criteria.

This will be accomplished by conducting a systematic comparison of existing control room design features with the NUREG 0700, Section 6 human engineering guideline checklists. The checklists will be reviewed and final-ized by the core team prior to administration to ensure plant specificity and to incorporate lessons learned f rom our Millstone Unit No. 3 CRDR.

Non-compliance items will be recorded as human engineer-ing discrepancies (HED's) on the HED form in Appendix C.

Photographic evidence of a non-compliance item will be made when deemed necessary to support the assessment and correction phases.

4.2.2 Lurvey Administration Human Factors personnel from the core team will adminis-ter the checklists at the control room and mock-up, as indicated in Paragraph 4.2.1, Survey. The control room will be used, where possible, for the functionally oriented type of criteria (e.g. switch barrier separa-tion, activation feedback, etc.) The mock-up will be

MP2 CRDR Page 26 used for the static or non-dynamic criteria as in panel arrangement, acronym, abbreviations, anth ropome t ric ,

etc. Upon completion of the survey, the core team will review the checklists' results for completeness prior to the commencement of the assessment phase. Any core team member can document opinions concerning the potential classification of the control room features under con-cern, which may be in conflict with the opinion of the majority of the team. This opinion will be forwarded to the CRDR project manager for inclusion in the review documentation.

4.3 Task Analysis 4.3.1 Purpose The objective of task analysis is to determine informa-tion and control requirements for the control room operator's tasks during emergency operations.

The information and controls requirements will be compared against the actual control room inventory to determine presence and/or absence of equipment and to verify its human engineering suitability. Discrepancies will be documented as HEDs.

4.3.2 Background The Millstone Unit No. 2 upgraded Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) were written f rom the Combustion Engineering Owner's Group Emergency Procedure Guidelines 4

(EPGs), Rev. 1. Millstone Unit No. 2 is a 2700 MW ther-mal design class CE plant and is the same class plant used as a generic plant for the EPGs.

I

MP2 CRDR Page 27 Presently, CEOG is developing additional documentation to identify all the operator information and control requirements to support emergency operations of a generic CE plant in accordance with the EPGs. These generic information and control requirements will pro-vide the bulk of information required for the Millstone Unit No. 2 plant specific task analysis. Plant specific requirements for tasks unique to Millstone Unit No. 2 and deviations from those developed by CEOG, will be determined as necessary by NU.

4.3.3 Methodology The methodology for performing the task analysis will be very similar to that utilized by our Millstone Unit No.

3 CRDR, as documented in the MP3 CRDR Summary Report.

Millstone Unit No. 2 EOPs will be used by the CRDR Core Team to generate Task Sequence Charts (See Figure 7) which will document each step in the sequence of the procedures. The individual operator tasks for each step in the sequence will then be developed and recorded on the Task Data Forms (See Figure 8).

After the operator tasks are recorded, the corresponding information and control requirements will be added to the Task Data Forms. The associated information and control characteristics will be recorded on supplemental forms and will include specific information (as appli-cable) such as parameter type, dynamic range, setpoint, resolution / accuracy, speed of response, units, and the need for action such as trending and alarming. Control characteristics will include specific information (as applicable) such as type (discrete or continuous), in-formation feedback associated with control use, response requirements, mode of operation, resolution, and range.

TASK SEQUENCE CHART (TSC) PLANT, UNIT #

SEQUENCE NO. SEQUENCE TITLE REV. #

TASKS IN MAIN SEQUENCE SEQ./ TASKS POTENTIALLY BRANCHED TO' COMMENTS SEQUENCE TASK NUMBER TASK TITLE NUMBER No. TITLE

• Cnter only one task namely the task immediately branched to. Page of Figure 7

o D

E N.

f H D.

o 1 6

Y I M T T e M R A a

P g O C

r t

E S

E T

E M

A N &

O I

T C I A

F O

T C

E T J N B E N

O O P

E M O

T C O

M E

R T

N A

L P

h O

s. I v T A

e C R O L

)

F D

T

(

D.

M #

8 R t m

O k L

A F s N P a O)

A r T I t T e Tn 8 A C e b A n D m u o h e N

F p Om O r K I u

S o T g

A TC IP C R i T E m C J o s F E

B o D OH El T o A r I t D n E o MC M(

I E

M A

N e S m OI

_. a V N A M

e E S

c n

e T u e C q v E t e i J S t B t

g e c U i l e S n n t j e U i i b u S t T O C T t a N n r k k k E a e s s s M l p a a a M P O T T T O C

l MP2 CRDR Page 28 p

With the operator tasks and information and controls requirements and associated characteristics identified and recorded, the next step will verif y that these requirements are:

l o present in the control room; and, o the equipment is effectively designed to support correct task accomplishment (i.e., verification of human engineering suitability).

The presence and/or absence of the plant specific in-strumentation and controls will be confirmed by the core team by systematically comparing the recorded informa-tion and control requirements to the actual control room inventory as displayed on the mock-up. Discrepancies will be identified as HEDs and recorded on the HED form, Appendix C.

Concurrent with th is review, a computer generated data base will be developed for all emergency-utilized equip-ment. This data base will contain the instrument's identification number, its location, and all operator tasks utilized. By computerized sorting process of this data base, an inventory of emergency instruments and equipment by location, and by tasks will be generated.

-- The sequence and data charts will be reviewed for the

" Status vs. Demand" criteria. Demand items will be noted on the task data forms and reviewed during the walk / talk through for potential discrepancies in the feedback information.

The human engineering suitability of the required information and controls requirements will be verified by performing walk / talk through of the emergency tasks at the mock-up.

MP2 CRDR Page 29 The suitability review will be performed by the members of the core team including the human f actors specialist, the operations engineer, the assistant training super-visor, and the controls engineer. Appropriate material extracted from the NUREG 0700, task analysis principles will be used as the review criteria (See Appendix D).

Discrepancies will be recorded as HEDs on the HED form (See Appendix C).

4.3.4 Validation of Control Room Functions The purpose of the validation process is to determine whether the operators can perform their functions effectively in a dynamic environment given control room instrumentation, procedures, and training. This process will also determine whether the CRDR enhancements and corrections do indeed correct the deficiencies found and that those enhancements and corrections do not introduce new deficiencies.

The validation process will be performed in two steps.

First, walk-throughs will be performed of several se-lected plant specific procedures on the updated control room mock-up containing the CRDR corrections and en-hancements. A normal complement of the control room operating crew will be performing the walk-throughs for observation and critique by the core team. Any problems in crew structure, Human Factors, or Procedures will be recorded, ascessed and dispositioned.

l In the second step, it is planned to axercise several specific operator functions on the plant simulator individually or during training. These functions will

{ be chosen f rom operational experience of the plant for their sensitive tasks and dynamic control aspects. As

! in the mock-up validation, any problems will be re-corded, assessed and dispositioned accordingly.

L

MP2 CRDR Page 30 5.0 ASSESSMENT PHASE 5.1 Objective 4

The objective of this phase of the CRDR is to evaluate for signi-ficance the HED's defined in the previous phases of the review, including consideration of the design standards and objectives.

5.2 Evaluation Criteria Human engineering discrepancies found during the control room I

survey, the operating ' experience review, and the task analysis review, will be evaluated and prioritized for resolution accord-ing to their potential to adversely af fect emergency operation.

The following four categories are designed to be unique so a consensus can be obtained f rom the team as to which priority each HED should be assigned.

5.2.1 Priority 1 (Safety Significant)

HED's that are judged likely to adversely affect the management of emergency conditions by the control room ope ra to rs . Most of the HED's placed in this category -

will probably be found during task analysis, supported by the results of the survey and operating experience i

review.

5.2.2 Priority 2 (Operational / Reliability)

HED's that are known to have caused problems or appear to cause problems during normal operation. The HED's place in this category will probably emerge during operator interviews. Some support may come f rom the control room su rvey.

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

MP2 CRDR Page 31 5.2.3 Priority 3 (Minor Consequences)

HED's that can be determined to have minor af fect on the safety or reliability of operations.

5.2.4 Priority 4 (No Consequences)

HED's that do not fit into any of the above categories.

These are judged by the review team as not affecting omergency operation and not previously documented as causing problems during operation.

The assessment process will be performed by the members of the core team in two stages in order to expedite this process; a triage or preliminary assessment (See Appendix E) and a final assessment.

The triage methodology will allow the team to resolve the HEDs with obvious solutions and reduce the number requiring more in-depth consideration for the final assessment.

The final assessment will be conducted in the same manner as the triage assessment with one further criteria, the " tie-breaker".

The purpose of this criteria is to establish the significance of a HED as it relates to the performance of an operators task when needed to resolve judgmental differences of the team, considering the following:

o The potential for causing or contributing to operator error, o The potential of detecting and recovering from the error.

o The consequence of the error to plant operation and safety.

MP2 CRDR Page 32 Thus - Significance = Pot. for recovery X Consequence A scale of 1 to 10 shall be applied to the considerations.

Northeast Utilities has developed and is using Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) methodologies for evaluating operator and equip-ment performance. These methodologies may be used by the review team to assist them in evaluating the priority classification of HED's.

Should the core team not be able to reach a consensus on the disposition of a particular HED, the majority will rule. Any core team member who feels strongly that a HED has been assessed as too low (or high) will be able to put that opinion in writing to the CRDR program manager, and have the statement included in th e record of the CRDR.

p MP2 CRDR Page 33 6.0 CORRECTION PHASE Correction is the process that resolves the discrepancies. Ini-tially, the compiled list of HED's is reviewed for assignment to probable categories of solution. Experience has shown, however, that many of these initial assignments are eventually changed, so HED's will be grouped in broad improvement categories. These categories will be as follows.

o Enhancement The use of several techniques of surf ace demarcation, coloring, mimics, labeling, and swapping, o Class Improvements A combination of minor changes to a particular type of control or indicator that will correct a whole class of p roblems ,

o Individual Discrepancy Corrections A solution or combination of solutions that will correct one particular discrepancy.

Large numbers of HED's can be corrected through enhancements, in-cluding labeling and component swapping. Many more that are class problems can. be corrected by specific improvement to the class of components. Additional solution methods that may be used-individually or in combination if necessary are as follows.

o Operator organization and communications.

o CRT display alternatives.

i o Procedural and adminis trative solutions .

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

MP2 CRDR Page 34 1

o Special training requirements.

Component replacement and panel alteration.

i' o t 6.1 Enhancements e

f Enh ancements include a number of techniques that involve surface improvements, such as demarcation lines, shading, and improved labeling. Also included in the enhancement category is the pos-sibility of component swapping. This involves changing the loca-tion of a control or indicator with a like unit within the same grouping. Swapping involves simple exchanges of locations with-In some cases , th is tech-1 i out the need for panel modifications.

nique can greatly improve the ef fectiveness of surf ace enhance-4 l

4 ments, and can resolve many more HED's than would otherwise be i- possible with enhancements alone.

i

6. 2 - Class Improvements The objective of this method is to consolidate classes of dis-and

+

crepancies that pertain to one type of control or indication, i

des ign improvements for that class.

to the panels and The enhancements discussed previously pertain panel-labeling, but do not include changes to the individual control or indicator. It is usually possible to make direct changes to a control or indicator, thereby correcting a whole group of problems. Labeling on an indicator, scale improvements, Disc repancies and deletions of extraneous markings are examples.

I on annunciators is a class of problems that will result in class improvement desiqns.

j 6.1 Ind iv idual Disc repancy Correctiorl The objective of this method is to correct HEDs one by one using the most performance / cost ef fective method or combina'. ion of methods. All resolutions that do not meet accepted, good human engineering practice will then be further analyzed to determine

?

acceptable improvements.

4

-,e w v-.-p. , , , . . , . , - -- ._--,s.-,.,, , ,y_s ..y, ,%,,.-n-,- , ,,.,..w,,w.cr, y-y-y--..,3e -g r - ,,.-% -raw .,_ --

MP2 CRDR Page 35 1

6.4 Documentation and Disposition 6.4.1 Documentation Documentation of the HED's will be accomplished in the

' following manner.

A HED Status Summary will be made and maintained in a computer file. It will be updated as changes occur and

{

will be printed for distribution periodically and on f request. The summary will indicate the current assign-ment, the status, and action required. This will be an important quality control tool for completion of work.

Criteria for the satisf actory completion of HED's is provided in Section 2.2 (Scope). These criteria have i been consolidated and assigned a' resolution code and as HED's are resolved, will be assigned to one of these

• codes, a

a

. Code Description

. A Meets Human Factors Engineering (HFE) guide-lines originally or as improved.

B Minor deviation, but satisfies the underlying performance principle implied by HFE guide-lines.

C Meets HFE guidelines through a combination of solutions.

, D Does not meet HFE guidelines.  ;

4 i E Solutions do not meet all guidelines, but are l

judged to be acceptable for safe operation for the reason stated.

I P

. . _ . , , , . r ,., _ _ _ _ . , . . . , , _ _ , , . , _ , , _ _ . _

MP2 CRDR Page 36 6.4.2 . Disposition The documentation previously described will be compiled in a class format to be included in the summary report.

The resolutions will be incorporated into the design document panel prints as well as included and verified on the control room mock-up.

Following final approval by NU management, any recommended changes will be implemented by NNECO in accordance with the normal change process.

MP2 CRDR Page 37 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULING PHASE The actions required to resolve significant HED's will vary, as will the time required to complete proposed changes.

It also must be recognized that the preparation of a schedule without knowledge of the changes to be made is little more than a guess.

NNECO will proceed with the implementation as rapidly as practi-cal upon completion of the correction phase. A number of factors will be considered in this implementation including but not limited to the following.

o Severity of the discrepancy.

o Safety consequence of errors that could be caused by the discrepancy.

o Impact on plant operation.

o Impact on operator training / retraining.

o Procurement schedules.

o Correction degree of difficulty.

A complete schedule will be included with the summary report.

MP2 CRDR Page 38 8.0 REPORTING PHASE Upon completion of the CRDR, a summary report of the results will be submitted to the NRC for review. This report will describe the results of the CRDR. It will summarize the review process by phases, the identified human engineering discrepancies, and the recommended corrective actions with implementation schedules for each action. All phases of the CRDR, and its complete documenta-tion, will be available for NRC evaluation and review.

The format of the Summary Report will clos.ely follow the imple-

.9 mentation plan for ease of cross referencing and will be similar to our Millstone Unit No. 3 Summary Report.

Changes that have been categorized as Priority 1 (Safety Signi-ficant) but do not provide a full and complete correction of an identified HED, or decisions to allow a discrepancy to remain, will be justified and information pertinent to such decisions will be provided. Priority 1 HEDs which were uncorrected, if any, will be submitted in the Summary Report in accordance with NUREG 0737, Supplement 1. Identified design improvements, safety related or not, will be described.

Any deviation or personnel change f rom the CRDR plan described herein will be included and appropriate explanation provided.

d MP2 CRDR Page 39 9.0 DOCUMENTATION Adequate documentation and document control creates a traceable and systematic translation of information from one phase of the

CRDR to the next. It is mandatory that the CRDR team have access to a complete, up-to-date library of documents to

i 4

o Provide a support base to manage and execute the various

steps of the control room review.

, o Provide a design data base f rom which f uture control room modifications may be made.

Therefore, a data base library is being established to ensure the success of the CRDR process.

This section describes the documentation system and management procedures that Millstone Unit No. 2 will use to support the control room review.

9.1 General Documentation Requirements Many documents will be referenced and produced during the CRDR-project. They will meet the following requirements.

9.1.1 Provide a record of documents used by the review team as ref erences during various phases of the CRDR.

9.1.2 Provide a record of documents produced by the review I

team as project output.

a 9.1.3 Provide a record of correspondence generated or received by the review team during the review.

i 9.1.4 Allow an audit path to be generated through the project ,

documentation.

1

-n > - - , - ~ ,a .-, ,..m , - - - - - - - , n-,.- e ,,,, ..--.,,,.,-..,---.-r-n,--,- .-- .--,.,,--.._.--..-n.

MP2 CRDR Page 40 f

k 9.1.5 Retain project files in a manner that allows future access to help determine the ef fects of control room changes proposed in the_ future.

9.2 Review Documentation Throughout the review process, documents will be processed to record data, analyses, and findings. Whenever practical and appropriate , standard forms developed in this plan will be used.

Any or all of these forms may be revised based on experience gained during the review. The documentation generated by the review is required to do the following.

9.2.1 Document the criteria used for each review activity.

9.2.2 Record the results of the survey, operating experience review, and task analysis, e

9.2.3 Compile HED's and associated data for review and assessment.

9.3 Document Control i

The control of documents, their final disposition as well as any l

reviews, will f all under the normal procedures of the NU System by the Nuclear Records Department and in accordance with the L '" Nuclear . Engineering and Operations Policies and Procedures i Manual". These procedures will be further reviewed for incorpor-ation of the principles applied in this review to any future l modifications to the control room.

MP2 CRDR Page 41 9.4 References The following documents are resources to be used during the re-view project. As the review progresses, it is anticipated that additional material and references will be' identified and ob-tained.

9.4.1 Millstone Unit No. 2 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).

9.4.2 Combustion Engineering Owners Group (CEOG) Emergency Procedure Guidelines (EPGs), Rev. 1, (CEN-152).

9.4.3 Millstone Unit No. 2 Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs).

9.4.4 CEOG Generic Information and Control Requirements (to be generated).

9.4.5 NRC Guidance Documents, and Regulatory Guides as listed in Section 2.2 (Scope) 9.4.6 Control Room Drawings (Floor Plans, Panel Layouts, etc.).

9.4.7 Control Room Photographs.

9.4.8 Human Factors Design Information:

o Van Cott & Kinkade o McCormick o MIL-STD-1472C 9.4.9 System Descriptions.

MP2 CRDR Page 42 9.4.10 Piping and Instrument Diagrams (P&ID's).

9.4.11 Operating Training Manuals.

9.4.12- Ins trument Tabulations .

9.4.13 Annunciator and Label Engraving Lists.

9.4.14 INPO/TVA Pilot Systems Review Report (INPO 82-014).

9.4.15 CRDR NUTAC INPO Documents.

9.4.16 NU Policy and Procedures Manuals.

9.4.17 other ERC Plans--SPDS, EOP, AMI (1.97), ERF.

9.4.18 Millsto.e Unit No. 3 CRDR Human Engineering Discrepan-cies and Summary Report (s).

9.4.19 Human Engineering Guide for Enhancing Nuclear Control Rooms, EPRI NP-2411, May, 1982 _

MP2 CRDR Page 43 10.0 COORDINATION WITH OTHER ACTIVITIES Implementation of Supplement 1 of NUREG 0737 necessitates the integration of certain post-TMI activities. Specifically, these activities are:

o Control Room Design Review (CRDR).

.o Emergency Operating Procedures (EOP's).

o Regulatory Guide 1.97 Provisions (R.G. 1.97),

o Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS).

o Emergency Response Facilities.

A part of the integration will occur during the walk-through or verification stage of the task analysis as recommended in Supple-ment 1. As'the core team walks th rough the specific operator tasks, they will record any and each shortcoming or discrepancy (e.g., special training required, control location, lack of computer display, etc. ) as a HED. It should be noted that the CRDR team includes personnel involved with certain aspects of the Supplement 1 to NUREG 0737 activities including the operations representative involved with the writing of the upgraded EOPs and the Human Factors specialist involved with the development of the SPDS. During the assessment and correction phases of the CRDR, disciplines involved with other f acets of Supplement I will supplement the core team in the resolution of these HED's (e.g.,

training may be modified, the control may be operated by a second operator, a display may be added to the SPDS, etc.).

?

MP2'CRDR Page 44 Any hardware modifications or enhancement resolutions will be verified by an additional walk-through by the core team. Upon satisf actorily completing this phase, the task analysis documen-tation will assist the Operations Department in modifying, if necessary, the plant-specific EOP's.

Also as part of the CRDR, the control room instruments that are intended for use under accident conditions will be reviewed and where necessary, appropriately highlighted, to enable the oper-ators to easily identify them, as requested by the Regulatory Guide 1.97.

In summary, the resolution of HED's (integrating all inputs f rom Supplement 1, to NUREG 0737 activities) could include:

o Plant Process Computer /SPDS display additions.

o Training to enhance operators' cognitive analysis.

o Requirements of additional or modified staffing.

o Utilization of Regulatory Guide 1.97 instrumentation, o Modification of specific EOP's.

Finally, the dynamic validation step will be performed as dis-cussed in Section 4.3.4 of this plan. This validation will be a true validation of the selected group of time-sensitive proce-dural steps rather than one to identify additional discrepancies.

MP2 CRDR Page 45 11.0

SUMMARY

.s This ' implementation plan was developed to describe the process whereby NNECO will conduct the human f actors review of the Millstone Unit No. 2 control room. A sincere effort has been made by NNECO to ensure that all major aspects of an effective CRDR have been considered during the development of this plan.

ab

APPENDIX A RESUMES I

l t

I I

I l

l l (v) l L

^ ~

i

- MP2 - CRDR RESUME OP: Thomas A. Shaffer EXPERIENCE:

1977 - Present Northeast Utilities Service Company, Berlin, Connecticut, Generation Electrical Engineer-ing 1980 - Present Supervisor, Controls Engi-neering Unit of Generation l Electrical Engineering Plan, schedule, coordinate, and supervise engineering activities involving control systems for NU's generating plants (nuclear, fossil, and hydro) and LNG facilities.

Responsible for coordinating activities necessary to install new and modified sys-tems and equipment to improve safety, per-formance, and availability of generating plants. Responsible for supervision of all project / discipline engineering functions supporting projects and operations activities.

1977 - 1980 Engineer, Generation Electri-

cal Engineering Group Responsible for retrofit assignments at Connecticut Yankee and Millstone Units No. 1 and No. 2, utilizing skills in Systems Engi-neecing and Control Systems Design, Process Instrumentation and Control, Cost and Sche-duling, BWR/PWR NSSS Reactor Control and Protection Systems, Construction Supervi-sion, Startup Tcsting, and Troubleshooting.

Responsible for review of related items of the Three Mile Island Accident such as Post Accident Monitoring Instrumentation, Human Factors Engineering for Control Board i

Designs, and Control System Logic relative to Man / Machine Interface.

Responsible for Design Review for Millstone Unit No. 3 in areas of specification review, instrumentation installation design docu-ments, control systems design, standards and regulatory guides.

4

MP2 - CRDR APPENDIX A-2 T. A. Shaffer'(continued) 1974 - 1977 Bechtel Power Corporation, Gaithersburg Maryland, Gaithersburg Power Division Engineer, Control System Group Responsible for control systems specifica-tions, engineered safety actuation system, flow elements, main and auxiliary control boards, seismic monitoring instrumentation, and access security systems. Preparation of instrument installation details, logic dia-grams, loop diagrams, control board designs, instrument location diagrams, seismic and separation criteria documents. Vendor and field liaison, liaison with client-repre-sentative.

Projects: Millstone Unit No. 2 and SNUPPS (Standard Nuclear Unit Power Plant Systems) .

Instrumentation / Electrical Engineer (1976),

Calvert Cliffs Unit No. 2, field engineer-ing.

Responsible for installation of instruments and their associated electrical circuits, startup testing.

6/73 - 6/74 Part Time - Student Engineer with AMP, Inc.,

Ila rrisbu rg , Pennsylvania, Automatic Machine Division.

Directly involved in all phases of machine design and product development.- Duties included detailing machine components, electrical design, and troubleshooting.

EDUCATION:

1972 Associate Degree in Electrical and Electronic Design Technology 1974 Bachelor of Technology Degree in Electrical and Electronic Design with special emphasis on Solid State and Digital Logic Circuits; Pennsylvania State University

MP2 - CRDR APPENDIX A-3 RESUME OF: Zenon A. Ufnal EXPERIENCE:

1982 - Present Northeast Utilities Service Company, Berlin, Connecticut 1984 - Present Engineer, Generation Electrical Engineering -

Controls Engineering l

Responsible for engineering, procurement, and installation support for control systems projects within the nuclear power plants.

Extensive involvement with the Millstone Units No. 1 and 2 plant process computer replacement projects.

1982 - 1984 Engineer, Nuclear Training Responsible for the development, coordina-tion, and class room presentation of power plants technical training programs.

1978 - 1982 STAGG Systems, Inc., Tustin, California Project Manager Responsible for conducting and managing engineering consulting projects involving the planning, specification and procurement of real-time computer based control systems for electric utility dispatch centers and hydroelectric power plants.

1973-1978 Combustion Engineering, Windsor, Connecticut Applications Engineer - Instrumentation and Controls Engineering Department Responsible for planning, directing, and coordinating departmental activities in the design and procurement of a broad range of process instrumentation, controls, and pro-tection systems for the second and third generating units of the San Onof re Nuclear Power Plant.

C

MP2 - CRDR APPENDIX A-4 Zenon A. Ufnal (Continued)

Group Leader Responsible for group activities involving all phases of design, analysis aad implemen-tation of control systems for nuclear steam generators. Also responsible for budgets, schedules, proposals, sales support, train-ing,'and field support.

Staff Engineer Involved in the design and performance analysis of control systems for nuclear power plants.

EDUCATION:

1973 B.S., Electrical Engineering, University of Hartford

MP2 - CRDR APPENDIX A-5 RESUME OF: John Becker EXPERIENCE:

1982 - Present Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, Waterford, Connecticut Operations Engineer, Millstone Unit No. 2, Operations Department Responsible for operations department sup-port including plant incident investiga-tions, operator training coordination, and operating procedures preparation.

Responsible for the development and imple-mentation of upgraded Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) to meet NUREG 0737, Supplement 1 criteria. This include active participation in all aspects of the EOPs upgrade including writing, reviewing and verification and validation activities.

Co-chairman of Combustion Engineering Owners Group-Operations Subcommittee. Involved with Operations Subcommittee work on Emer-gency Procedure Guidelines (CEN-152) since 1982.

Member of the Millstone Unit No. 3 SPDS Verification and Validation team.

1980-1982 Associate Engineer, Millstone Millstone No. 2, Engineering Department Participated in refueling /backfit activities and operations support.

1977-1980 Turbine Generator Startup Engineer, General Electric Company, Installation and Service Engineering Department.

Responsible for the technical direction of turbine-generator installation, startup, operations and maintenance including balanc-ing and troubleshooting of electrohydrolic control systems.

EDUCATION: B.S., Mechanical Engineering, Duke Unive rs ity Senior Reactor Operator License on Millstone Unit No. 2.

MP2 - CRDR APPENDIX-6 RESUME OF: Allan M. Stave EXPERIENCE:

1983 - Present Northeast Utilities Service Company, Berlin, Connecticut 1965 - 1983 United Technology Corporation (Norden Systems and Sikorsky Aircraft) 1960 - 1965 General Electric Missile and Space Vehicle Department 1958 - 1960 Wright Air Development Center More than twenty-five years of human f actors applied and research experience while em-ployed at listed organizations. Work during this time was in the following areas.

Member Core Team for Millstone Unit No. 3 CRDR Member BWROG Committee on Integration of Procedures and SPDS Design of SPDS displays for Millstone Unit No. 3 Manned and Unmanned Space Vehicles Training Equipment (Aircraft)

Flight Simulator Design Design of Training Programs Military Aircraft Helicopter Crew Compartments I IIelicopter Maintainability Military Command and Control Systems i Man / Computer Interf aces Effects of Noise and Vibration on Pilot 4

Performance i

MP2 - CRDR APPENDIX A-7 A. M. Stave (Continued)

Design and Execution of Experimental Studies Design and _ Execution of Survey and Interview Type Studies Work Space Layout Control Panel Layout Complex Display Design and Evaluation Quantification of Human-Performance Task Analysis Design and Execution of Training Programs EDUCATION:

1954 Bachelor of Arts Degree, Psychology University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1955 Master of Arts Degree, Psychology Boston University Boston, Massachusetts 1964 Doctor of Philosophy Candidate Industrial Psychology Temple University Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Graduate work included courses in the following areas:

Statistics, Human Factoring Engineering, Experimental Design, Sensor / Perceptual Processes, Industrial Psychology, Test Construction / Design, Survey Techniques, Interviewing

MP2 -CRDR APPENDIX A-8 RESUME OP: Michael J. Wilson EXPERIENCE: -

1985 - Present Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Millstone Station, Waterford, Conn.

Assistant Training Supervisor Responsible for all aspects of training for Millstone Unit 2 dealing with the following prog rams :

o Licensed Operators including Initial Training, Requalification Training and License Upgrade Training.

o Non-Licensed Operators including Initial Training and Continuing Training o Maintenance o Instrumentation and Controls 1982 - 1984 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Millstone Station, Waterford, Conn.

Senior Instructor-Operators Responsibilities:

Lead instructor for reactor operator and non-licensed operator training.

Planning, organizing, scheduling and coordinating reactor operator and non-licensed operator training.

Qualifications:

~

Hold current NRC Senior Reactor Operator License on Millstone Unit 2 1980 - 1982 Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Windsor, Conn.

Nuclear Training Specialist Qualifications:.

Integrated Plant Instructor (Combustion Engineering Senior Operator equivalent)

MP2 -CRDR APPENDIX A-9 Michael J. Wilson (Continued)

Assignment:

On contract to Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2.

Responsible for preparing and delivering presentations dealing with all aspects of nuclear power plant systems and operations to reactor operator replacement candidates, non-licensed operators and licensed reactor operators and senior reactor operators.

s 1972-1980 Eight years active duty as a Machinist's Mate in the U.S. Navy Nuclear Power Program.

1977 - 1980 Operating and maintaining the U.S. Navy Nuclear Power Proto-type Training Facility at Windsor, Connecticut.

'I Instructing students, both of ficer and en-listed, in reactor plant theory and opera-tions in preparation for their qualification as Watch Officers and Mechanical, Electri-4 cal, and Reactor Operators.

Qualifications:

Engineering Watch Supervisor Mechanical Operator Watchstations Maintenance Instructor Positions:

Training Coordinator: Supervisor of a staff of seven instructors. Responsible for the timely qualification of up to sixty Mechanical, Electrical, and Reactor Operator and Engineering Laboratory Technician students.

Duties include: Inplementation and coordination of a four-phase training program; maintenance of qualification records; student evaluation and counseling.

Classroom Instructor: Responsible for preparing and delivering lectures on the design, construction, and operation of reactor support systems to classes of thirty enlisted and of ficer students.

MP2 CRDR APPENDIX A-10 Michael J. Wilson (Continued) 1974 - 1977 - Operating and maintaining the reactor support systems aboard the USS Alexander Hamilton (SSBN 617)

Qualifications and Positions:

Engineroom Supervisor Mechanical Operator Watchstations Divisional Quality Assurance Petty Officer Divisional Training Petty Officer EDUCATION: Naval Service Schools:

Nuclear Power Training Unit Nuclear Power School Machinist's Mate Class "A" School Civilian Schools:

University of Hartford, Hartford, Ct.

Washburn University, Topeka, Ks.

Topeka High School, Topeka, Ks.

- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ . _ _ _ . _)

APPENDIX B COVER LETTER /OUESTIONNAIRE l

(vi)

MP2-CRDR APPENDIX B-1 QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS A design review of the Millstone Unit No. 2 control room is being performed. Its purpose is to determine the design adequacy of the control room and shutdown panel from an operational stand-point. One of the best source of information for this review are the people who have had operational experience and have operated this unit. That is why we have requested your assistance.

The attached questionnaire is a part of the review process. It has been prepared by the review team. The purpose of the ques-tionnaire is to highlight any categories of design errors you feel have been made for possible improvement. We are also inter-ested in the good features you believe have been utilized in the design. Follow-up interviews where necessary will be performed to clarify interpretation of your answers.

Please respond to the questions as they apply to your job or position, and in relation to your experience. Where you feel unqualified to answer, please indicate so, and explain. Full explanatory sentences are much more useful than yes-no answers, so please be an informative as possible.

Feel free to ask the NU project team any questions you may have concerning the questionnaire. Phone numbers are included below for this purpose.

John Becker (NU) 447-1791 ext. 4071 Zen Ufnal (NU) 665-5027 Al Stave (NU) 665-3627

MP2-CRDR APPENDIX B-2 OPERATOR OUESTIONNAIRE PERSONAL INFORMATION Nama:

Work Phone Number:

Education:

Position /

Title:

I Years Experience in Industry:

I Years with Northeast Utilities:

Years at Millstone:

Training in Current position: (directly related to your work)

School / Facility (name if applicable)

Courses Completed:

On-Site Training:

MP2-CRDR APPENDIX B-3 Job Related Experience:

Military:

Other: (nuclear, fossil, etc.)

MP2-CRDR APPENDIX B-4 A. WORKSPACE LAYOUT AND ENVIRONMENT

1. (a) What do you think of the general layout of the control room?

Best I hLve seen Good, I can work with it Average, I can work with it, but it could be better Poor, I cannot work with it (b) What are the things you like best about the control room layout?

l (c) What are the things that bother you about the control room layout?

Some things to consider are:

Panel-to-panel arrangement Operational sequences

~Two-man operation Board accessibility r

MP2-CRDR APPENDIX B-5 A. WORKSPACELAYOUT AND ENVIRONMENT

2. Below is a list of environmental f actors which might cause control room problems. From your experience with MP2 or other control rooms, please rank them in the order of their potential to cause problems (lowest number for the worst offenders).

Ventilation Temperature Humidity Illumination Noise (ambient)

Excessive Control Room Traffic General Appearance (color coordination, etc.)

Other (please specify)

Comment on your choices.

3. Is the lighting level inadequate for any areas in the control room? If yes, please indicated the relevant areas.

4. Is shadowing of (or glare on) instruments a problem?

4

, --- . - - - - - - , . . . . - , - -- ,a- .n., r,. . - . , - . -

MP2-CRDR APPENDIX B-6

5. Are there problems with the heating / air conditioning system?

a. Is the control room comfortable?

b. Are there problems uith static electricity?

c. Do control room panels or controls overheat?

d. Is the air in the control room stale?

l l

6. Does background noise in the control room interfere with speech communication?

f

7. Does the presence of excessive personnel in -the control room ever cause a problem? If yes, describe how this has caused problems.

I

t MP2-CRDR APPENDIX B-7 B PANEL DESIGN (Main Boards and Hot Shutdown Panel)

1. Are there controls and displays that must be used in con-junction with each other that are too f ar apart?

2. Are any controls difficult to adjust as precisely as needed?

3. Are there switches that do not " snap" into position or that can be left halfway between positions or, where appropriate, do not have spring return? Are there switches that are difficult to turn?

4. Are any controls too large, too small, or too close together to operate easily?

5. Are knobs for spring-loaded switches and selector controls large enough to be held easily against the spring torque without f atigue for as long as necessary to accomplish the control action?

6. Are there spring-loaded switches that must be held for an extended period.

MP2-CRDR APPENDIX B-8

7. Are there control knobs or handles that slip or move loosely on their shaf t?

8. Are any meters scaled in dif ferent units than the procedures that ref erence them? In addition to listing the relevant meters, describe the discrepancies.

9. Do any controls and displays work together in confusing ways? In addition to listing the relevant controls and displays, describe why they are confusing.

10. Are any instruments dif ficult to compare with backups because of differences in scale units, elevated zeros, etc.?

11. Are any instruments hard to use because they have to be read more precisely than the scale allows?

12. Are any labels unclear about what is being displayed, what a control does, or the control's position?

MP2-CRDR APPENDIX B-9

13. Can the key for any key switch be removed when the switch is not in an "off" or a " safe" position?

14. Are there indicator lights where equipment status is indi-caced by a light being off (for example, pump is off when light is off)?

15. Are there any controls with no direct, immediate display feedback? Where there is a time lag between control acti-Vation and ultimate system state, are there any instances in which there is not immediate feedback indicating what is occurring and the direction of parameter change?

16. Are there chart recorders that lack Hi/Lo speed capability where fast tracking rates or trending is periodically re-quired or desirable?

17. Comment on panel mimicing (e.g., do mimics aid in operation, are they clear and not confusing?) .

18. In your opinion, are too many or too few functions performed automatically (i.e. , should the operators have greater or

'less system control)? Please explain your answer

'MP2-CRDR APPENDIX B-10 C. ANNUNCIATOR WARNING SYSTEM

1. Please rate the tiles with respect to:

Need Great OK Fixing Legibility Color Coding Grouping Location on Proper Panel Please comment on those areas you feel need fixing.

2.- Do audible alarms aid or distract you in plant operation?

3. Do you get recurring or " nuisance" alarms when a system is deactivated intentionally?

4. Do you get any particular recurring invalid alarms?

5. Do any alarms fail to give operators adequate time to respond to warning conditions before a serious problem develops?

i

6. Are there conditions requiring a rapid response that are signaled by light indicators instead of annunciators?

7. Do any important instruments on the back panels have neither an alarm you can hear in the control room nor their own annunciator on the front panel?

MP2-CRDR APPENDIX B-11

8. Please comment on annunciator controls and different flash rates.

n

l l'

MP2-CRDR APPENDIX B-12 D. DISPLAYS

1. Are there displays for which illustrations or pictures could be used to ' better describe text or alphanumeric material?

2. Would it be helpful if procedural sequences were displayed on a CRT in addition to having hard copy formats (manuals, etc.)?

k MP2-CRDR APPENDIX B-13 E. COMMUNICATIONS

1. Do you feel that the telephone and maintenance jack systems are adequate for all plant operations? Please elaborate.

2. Please rate the communications at Millstone Unit No. 2.

Excellent Good Average Poor (a) Operator to Operator (b) Supervisor to Operator (c) Control Room to Remainder of Plant Based on the above, how might things be improved?

2. Are there any problems with handling communications f rom outside the plant during an emergency? Briefly describe any problems.

MP2-CRDR APPENDIX B-14 F. STAFFING

1. In your opinion, what is the number of operators needed to operate the control room effectively during each of the following?

(a) Steady state operations (b) Transients (i.e., startup/ shutdown)

(c) Of f-normal / emergency operations

APPENDIX C HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCIES l

(vii)

_ ._ _ .. - - - - _ _ _ J

MP2.- CRDR APPENDIX C HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY

{ HED No.

TITLE:

PRIORITY:

COMMENT:

Reviewer Date Ref. Source IDENTIFICATION: Panel:

Component Name:

ID or No.:

DESCRIPTION:

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS:

RESOLUTION: (Code )

Approved Signature: Date:

/ / Aoditional page(s) attached

MP2 - CRDR APPENDIX C HED FORM INSTRUCTIONS HED NUMBER: Assign numbers consecutively using one of the fol-lowing prefixes (reviewer assign prefix, admin. assign number):

L = Labels and Location Aids P = Panel Layouts CD = Control-Display Integration D = Displays (CRT)

V = Visual Displays A = Annunciator Warning Systems C = Communications W = Work Space and Environment PC = Process Computers TITLE: One to four words that describe the system or component involved.

PRIORITY: To be assigned as required during Assessment and Correction Phases.

COMMENT: One sentence stating the general type of discrepancy.

REVIEWER: The reviewer's initials.

DATE: The date report prepared.

REFERENCE:

List the reference or guideline number.

SOURCE: Which CRDR activity; Survey, TA, HE Suit., Interview, etc.

IDENTIFICATION: Panel; give panel number or name.

COMPONENT NAME: Give the name and/or number of the instrument or control that has the discrepancy.

ID or NUMBER: List identification numbers.

DESCRIPTION: Give details of the problem. (Do not say what should be done.)

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: Normally to be supplied later during assessment phase. If you know a simple solution, make a note here when initially filling out.

RESOLUTION: To be supplied during correction phase. Assign resolution code in parenthesis. Describe authorized resolution.

SIGNATURE: To be signed by the project manager having approval au tho rity.

ADDITIONAL PAGE(S): Check box if additional page(s) attached.

4 APPENDIX D TASK ANALYSIS HED PRINCIPLES (viii)

MP2 - CRDR APPENDIX D MILLSTONE UNIT NO. 2 CdNTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW (CRDR)

TASK ANALYSIS HED PRINCIPLES

1. .4 a all the controls and displays required to perform this task present in the control room?

6111a 6411b

2. Are the controls and displays grouped by sequence, function, or use for the requirements of this - task?

6515d 6811 6821 6911c 6921b

3. Are the controls and displays labeled according to the requirements of this task?

6514e & f 6533c

4. Can the controls and displays used in this task be read accurately f rom the operators' view position? Can the displays be read while operating the associated con-trols?

6113c(2) 6122e(2) & f 6125a(2) & b(2) 6542b(2) 6911a

5. Do the controls and displays give the operator direct, readily usable information if required? (e.g.:

Parameter values Range, band and limits Trend information i

Rate of change Scale compatibility Digital or analog information Status or demand information Precision and feedback information 6411a & b 6511 6512 6541g 6931c 6932

6. Is the control room arranged and staf fed to ensure the requirements of this task?

6111b 6112 6113d

APPENDIX E ASSESSMENT TRIAGE METHODOLOGY (ix)

MILLSTONE UNIT NO.2 CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW (CRDR)

ASSESSMENT TRIAGE METHODOLOGY

\

rior to the formal significance evalu tion nd correction, every HED will be rev wed r the following.

. Is the HED truly a deficienc ?

2. Is the HED in the process o resolu-tion with an existing desi change?

3. the HED a logical can date for m nagement resolution? e.g.,

tr ining/ procedures /PC ' splay)

4. Is he HED part of a 1 rger, dupli-cate\or generic HED?

\\.

5. Are su face enhance ents the logica resolution?

. Is the HED resolution obviou nd minor for change to both t control om and the simulator?

7. Does e HED requir further study and asse ment?

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - . _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ - - _ - - -