ML20072B796

Control Room Review Plan for Oconee,Mcguire & Catawba Nuclear Stations,Duke Power Co

ML20072B796
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee, Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire, 05000000
Issue date:	02/15/1983
From:	DUKE POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20072B710	List: ML20072B705 ML20072B755 ML20072B770 ML20072B781 ML20072B789 ML20072B796 ML20072B814
References
C-1800023, C-1800023-R03, C-1800023-R3, NUDOCS 8303070169
Download: ML20072B796 (38)

Text

. .

CONTROL ROOM REVIEW PLAN for OCONEE, McGUIRE & CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATIONS DUKE POWER COMPANY

/

8303070169 830228 PDR ADOCK 05000413 l l A PDR i . -.

. o Revision Log l

Revision No. Date Description Pages Affected i 0 4-19-82 Original issue All 4

1 5-4-82 Revised to include comments A'll from Consultants and others 2

6-17-82 Revised as noted i, 11, 1, 2, 4 5, 6, 9-13

. 3 2-15-83 Revised as noted All I

i J

I i

l l

l

C/1800023 Page i l

l

?

l' FOREWORD l This Control Room Review Plan was explicitly developed for use on Duke nuclear

! units and structured to cenplement related nuclear unit activities while l optimi:ing use of our resources.

I As a matter of background, Duke Power Company has utilized "in-house" architect / engineering for many years. It is the Company's philosophy to develop and utilize in-house resources for the design, construction and operation of our units. Additionally, we have sought out external expertise to

! complement.this in-house capability where appropriate. This overall approach has been used in placing some 58 units in service over the past thirty years.

All these units included in-house control room design. Practical applications of human factors engineering have been in place over this entire process. In fact, full scale control board mock-ups using direct operator feedback have been in use since the mid-fifties.

With this overall approach we have developed an admirable record for safe, reliable, and efficient power plant operation. While we are proud of that record, we do see benefit in conducting control room reviews for our nuclear units. The basis for this review is: (1) increasing plant complexity, (2) frequency of process functional changes, (3) advancing human factors i technology, and finally (4) related regulatory activities.

r In addition to our long past experience in power plant design, we have been '

involved in many recent activities which are in support of control room review programs. More specifically, we have been involved in:

(1) Participation in AIF, INP0 and IEEE related activities, (2) McGuire Preliminary Control Room Review (began January 1980, completed June 1980),

(3) Various human factors training of Duke Staff (EPRI, MIT, and In-House Short Courses by J.L. Seminara, T.B. Sheridan and H.E. Price).

With the above background, Duke has set out to conduct control room reviews i

with the objective of identifying cost effective improvements to strengthen the man machine interface. We have approached this review with the formation of an

interdisciplinary Steering Committee which was established in October,1981.

It is this Committee's charter to provide management oversight to fulfill the above objective by:

(1) Formulating the review program concept, (2) Assembling the required expertise, (3) Ensuring coordination sith related activities, (4) Review and approval of the project report, and (5) Ensuring implementation of the cost effective improvements.

The Steering Committee _ agreed upon.a review program concept in January 1982 which served as the basis for this plan. In addition to stating objectives and approach, t.he program concept emphasized the utilization of a full time review team reporting to the Steering Committee. This team is responsible for the development of the detailed plan and the execution of that plan. Further, it was emphasized that the plan is to be executed utilizing our most qualified C/1800023 Page ii

1 resources. These resources include the well established line organizations, the Review Team, and external consultants as appropriate.

With the above program, we will: i (1) Ensure we fulfill our responsibility (as owner and operator of the units) to make cost effective improvements, (2) Ensure an expeditious review, and (3) Enhance our long term experience base.

By further enhancing our long term experience base we can not only feed improvements forward to new designs, but also ensure consistent review and application of modifications to existing design.

The full time Review Team was assigned in February,1982 and has developed the attached Control Room Review Plan which has been approved by the Steering Committee.

T. C. McMeekin Principal Engineer Control Room Review Steering Committee Chairman l

C/1800023 Page tii l

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. OVERVIEW 1 A. Introduction

• 1 B. Objective 1 C. Definition of the Physical Review Area 1 D. Description of the Control Room Review 2 II. MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING 3 A. Management Approach 3

8. Steering Committee Composition and Qualifications 5 C. Review Team Composition and Qualifications 5 D. Reporting Relationship's 5-E. Review Team Orientation and Training 6 III. DOCUMENTATION 7 A. Introduction 7

8. References 7 C. Correspondence 7 D. Documents Generated by Review Team 7 IV. REVIEW PHASE 9 A. Objective 9 B. Activities 9 V. ASSESSMENT PHASE 12 A. Objectives 12

8. Description 12 C. Report 12 VI. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE 14 A. Objective 14 B. Description 14 C. Future Control Room Modifications 14 VII. PROGRAM INTERFACES 15 l

l 1

C/1800023 Page iv

• O LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE TITLE PAGE 4

1 CONTROL ROOM REVIEW PROCESS 16 i 2 OCONEE 1 and 2 CONTROL ROOM 17 3 OCONEE 3 CONTROL ROOM 18 4 MCGUIRE 1 AND 2 CONTROL ROOM 19 5 CATAWBA 1.AND 2 CONTROL ROOM 20 6 MANAGEMENT APPROACH 21 7 REVIEW PHASE ACTIVITIES 22 8 PROGRAM INTERFACES 23

! APPENDICES 4

APPENDIX TITLE A CONTROL ROOM REVIEW STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBER QUALIFICATION

SUMMARY

B

SUMMARY

OF QUALIFICATIONS FOR REVIEW TEAM PERSONNEL i

I l

C/1800023 Page v

-w-w- - , - - - - - w--- m,g-, , -

. --- - w-- -r---- -, , , ,

Pag 2 1 of 23 t  ;

i I. OVERVIEW

}

A. Introduction 1 The control room design review is part of a larger effort within Duke Power to upgrade control rooms, emergency facilities, and procedures.

While the scope of this plan for the control room review is directed 3- toward a human factors review of the design adequacy and operability

of the existing control room, it is recognized and intended that .

i other areas of concern such as upgraded emergency procedures, the

! design of an SPOS, and the inclusion of post accident monitoring

instrumentation will be coordinated with the control room review to

! ensure that an integrated, operable control room will result (refer

! to Figure 1).

4 Guidance for the control room review ha.s been under development by the NRC and other industry groups. We concur with the basic objectives of these activities. Subsequently, this review plan will

! be structured to fulfill the basic objectives or intent of this guidance.

1 This plan shall be applicable to the control room reviews performed for the Oconee, McGuire, and Catawba Nuclear Stations. A separate

review will be performed for each individual unit at each station.

However, generic reviews will be performed wherever applicable, such 1

as a review of the environment in a two unit control room. Full l advantage will be taken of previous work in such areas.

1 i 8. Objective i

l The primary objective of the Control Rocs Review is to identify cost

effective improvements which will strengthen the man-machine j interface. Although primary emphasis will be placed on improving our l emergency response capability, problem areas in normal operations

will also be examined.

1

[ The objective will be accomplished by identifying HED's in the j man-machine interfaces in the control room, determining the extent

and importance of the HED's, developing and implementing

modifications and training as necessary to resolve significant

] discrepancies, and establishing a working interface with the SPDS,

Emergency Procedure Upgrade and Post Accident Monitoring i Assessment efforts.

k The term HED (Human Engineering Discrepancy) has been " defined" as "a 1 departure from some benchmark in system design suitability for the

! roles and capabilities of the human operator. This review will ,

l refer to discrepancies as HED's. j i

l C. Definition of the Physical Review Area

! The physical area for control roem review activities will be as shown j in Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5, and will include all of the identified

! C/1800023 i

' ~

Paga 2 of 23 control panals. Also included in the review will be the Auxiliary Shutdown Panels at all three stations.

l D. Description of the Control Room Review The control room review will be conducted in three distinct phases: j o Review Phase o Assessment Phase o Implementation Phase -

1. Review Phase The Review Phase will constitute the investigative portion of

, the control room review. During this phase, plant specific mock-ups will be built for use during the review. Task analyses will identify the task steps which the operator must accomplish during selected emergency and normal operations, and will evaluate the human engineering suitability of controls and displays to support those steps. An examination of operating experience, both generic and specific to each plant, will be conducted by a review of operating history, i.e. plant records, LER experience, etc., and by a survey of operating personnel through structured interviews and questionnaires. A survey of the control room components and environment will also be i performed to determine conformance with applicable human factors guidelines.

2. Assessment Phase During the Assessment Phase all discrepancies identified in the Review Phase will be analyzed, and the importance of each discrepancy to plant operation from the control room will be determined. Discrepancies will be ranked according to importance and significant discrepancies will be selected for resolution through modifications, additional training, etc.

Modifications and other actions proposed to resolve significant discrepancies will be analyzed for impact and effect upon operation.

3. Implementation Phase A plan will be developed to ensure the integration of approved modifications with otner enhancement programs, as well as plant

~

operating status, and an installation schedule will be determined. A follow-up procedure will be instituted to ensure successful completion of modifications.

During the control room review, close coordination for technical interchange will be maintained with simultaneous programs for the development of an SPDS, the upgrade of emergency procedures, and the assessment of post accident monitoring instrumentation.

C/1800023

Page 3 of 23 II. MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING A. Management Approach

1. Introduction Duke's approach to management of the control room review effort is outlined in Figure 6. The primary elements include the Steering Committee, the Review Team, the Duke line organizations, and Consultants.

The primary responsibility of the Steering Committee is to provide management oversight to assure integration of the project objectives for meaningful control room improvement. ,

The Review Team reports to the Steering Committee through the  !

Steering Committee Chairman and is responsible for planning, '

scheduling and coordination of the total integrated control room review including the assignment of particular technical activities to existing line organization and obtaining consultants as necessary.

The line organizations will carry out many of the technical activities associated with the review and will work closely with the Review Team in developing procedures and reports.

2. Responsibilities

a. The Steering Committee provides the necessary and critical link between company departments, such as Nuclear Production or Design Engineering, and the Review Team. Its primary responsibility is to provide management oversight to assure integration of the project objectives of meaningful control room improvement as well as fulfilling regulatory intent for the Oconee, McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations in a cost effective manner. The Steering

. Committee is responsible for assembling the required expertise to carry on the project, the formulation of the overall program and its scope, and ;ssuring coordination to accomplish the job on i timely basis. The Steering Committee is also responsible for review and approval of the final report and its aecommendations.

b. The Review Team is responsible for pirning, scheduling and coordinating the total integrated conte 1 room review.

Work activities will be performed by Duke line organizations, consvitants, and the Review Team. The Review Team will be responsible for assigning specific activities-Review Team activities include developing the methodologies for the review and for the assessment of discrepancies, establishing the overall plan and schedule for the control room review, acting as a resource for the line organi-C/1800023

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - e wa - - - - - - - - - -

Page 4'of 23 .

k zations and integrating all action items. Human factors specialists will be used as necessary to develop, review or -

otherwise support review and assessment activities. In addition, the Review Team will develop or have developed all reports relating to the control room review and assure that appropriate reports are submitted to the Steering Committee for review and approval. ,

c. The line organizations are responsible for performing assigned portions of the centrol room review which are t related to their normal activities. For example, the r control room survey will be performed by the line j organization in Design Engineering that is responsible for r control room engineering activities. j

d. Human factors consultants will be obtained to develop, I review, conduct, or otherwise support Review and Assessment  !

activities. In some activities the consultant will have i lead responsibility, for example, operator interviews will be conducted and the data analyzed by the consultant. In 4

other activities the consultant will perform a supporting role, r

3. Interfaces  ;

In order to perform the control room review expeditiously while i at the same time utilizing and broadening experience in our existing organizations, specific tasks within the course of the  !

control room review will be delegated to the line organization and consultants where necessary. The relationship between the i Control Room Review Team and these technical lead organizations i will be established as follows: L Based upon the objectives defined by the Review Team, the I technical lead organization will submit a procedure for  !

each assigned activity to the Review Team for review to ,

assure the activities are coordinated with and support the overall effort. These procedures will address the major .

l steps required to perform assigned activities as well as '

the interfaces with the Review Team, especially with regard i to the level of detail of information exchanged, schedules, etc.

Elements of the lead organization will be responsible for  ;

i producing a final report for each assigned activity in a  ;

format approved by the Review Team.  ;

The Review Team Leader will have the authority to contact the appropriate manager of the technical lead organization I to establish a cooperative working relationship with the  ;

line organization. '

1 C/1800023 a

1

4 Paga 5 of 23 To ensure technical continuity of the total project, the Review Team Leader will:

Clearly coramunicate to the technical lead organization the relationship of each task product to the total project.

Establish a specific Review Team member to serve as technical liaison with the lead organization.'

Review with the technical lead organizations the integration of the individual task products as appropriate to resolve questions, seek clarification, etc.

Qualified consultants will work with the Review Team and the line organizations to meet the objectives of the Control Room Review. These consultants will play a key role in the review, 1

and will be given the opportunity to express independent judgements. -

B. Steering Committee Composition and Qualifications The Steering Committee is composed of eleven members representing the following areas within the company:

4 NUCLEAR PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT Nuclear Maintenance Nuclear Engineering (Licensing)

Oconee Nuclear Station McGuire Nuclear Station Catawba Nuclear Station Nuclear Operation PRODUCTION SUPPORT DEPARTMENT Production Technical Services DESIGN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

• Electrical Division - Control Systems Engineering Safety Review, Analysis and Licensing Division Mechanical / Nuclear Division - Systems Engineering A summary of the qualifications of the Steering Committee members is provided in Apendix A.

C. Review Team Composition and Qualifications The Review Team is composed of a core team of six full-time members.

Additional members from the line organization will be added during certain planned activities, such as Task Analysis and the Assessment Phase. The core team members include three Senior Reactor Operators (from Oconee, McGuire, and Catawba) and three Instrumentation and

Control Engineers (from Design Engineering). The qualifications for core team members are shown in Appendix B.

C/1800023 i

Paga 6 of 23 D. Reporting Relationships i The Review Team Leader will functionally report to the Control Rocm Review Steering Committee Chairman. Review Team members and consultants will functionally report to the Review Team Leader.

Liaisons will be established with the line organizations for each major activity. Although these relationships are important for effedtive management of the review, recourse for unresolved differences and other concerns am,ng the Review Team members and consultants is through the Review Team leader. If still unresolved, the Chairman of the. Steering Committee and higher levels of management as necessary will resolve the difference or concern. Such differences and concerns will be documented.

E. Orientation and Training

1. Human Factors Training will be provided for the review team and participating i line organizations to familiarize personnel with principles of  :

human factors engineering and their application to the control l room review. In addition, specific activities associated with  !

the review will warrant additional training for the Review Team l and others. For example, task analysis and control room survey  !

teams will be trained by a human factors consultant prior to beginning the review activities. The importance of proper preparation and training for all review activities is recognized. ,

2. Simulator / Procedure Familiarization i

Training in basic plant operation fundamentals and the use of i operating and emergency procedures will be provided for Review  !

Team members. l

3. Other Training i During the course of the review other areas requiring training may be identified and appropriate training or orientation will be obtained to meet the needs. In addition, human factors consultants will be provided orientation training to familiarize i them with nuclear power plant fundamentals and operation. i l

l C/1800023

Page 7 of 23 l

III. DOCUMENTATION A"D CONTROLS A. Introduction It is recognized that maintaining an efficient means of documenting all phases of the review effcrt is necessary to support a meaningful Control Room Review. The Review Teams' approach to Documentation is further discussed under the h1adings of References, Correspondence and Documents Generated by Review Team.

B. References During the Control Room Review, a substantial amount of reference material will be used for guidance. Following is a list of the types of material that will be necessary:

1. Final Safety Analysis Reports (FSAR) for all plants

2. Regulatory Guidec (e.g., RG 1.97, 1.47, etc.) and Duke Nuclear Guides

3. NUREG's (e.g., NUREG 0700,0899,0737,0801,etc.)

4. Control Room Design (e.g., Control room floor plans, layout drawings, photographs,etc.)

5. Human Factors Information (e.g., Human Engineering Guide to Equipment Design, MIL-STD-14728 Human Engineering Design for Military Systems, Equipment and Facilities, etc.)

6. Westinghouse and B & W Emergency Procedure Guidelines (EPG's)

7. Results of previous control room review activities

8. INP0/NUTAC guideline documents C. Correspondence All correspondence generated or received by the Review Team will be filed in the Review Team files. In addition, files have been established in the Nuclear Production and the Design Engineering Departments which will contain all correspondence related to the Review. Existing filing and document control systems will be utilized.

D. Documents Generated by Review Team Various procedures, forms, reports and other documents will be generated as necessary to *

1. Occument the basis or criteria used for each review activity

2. Record the results of the Control Room Survey, Operating Experience Review, and Task Analysis .

l C/1800023

,- y-e ww-- , , -ws- ---. - s,,, ,-n ,-. .w---

Pagm 8 of 23

3. Compile and assemble HED's and associated data for review and assessment Consultants will assist Duke in the above areas as necessary. In addition, a data base management system will be developed to assist-in sorting, comparing and analyzing HED's generated during the review. ,

i l

C/1800023 l

l l

~'~~ ~ ~

I J ,_ T _ L - _. . , _ _ _

l

Page 9 of 23 IV. REVIEW PHASE A. Objective The primary objective of the Review Phase is to identify HED's in the man-machine interface in the control room. The Review Phase will provide an examination of the design of the control room and the characteristics of the man / machine interface to determine whether operator tasks can be accomplished effectively. The examination will be conducted in three major areas (refer to Figure 7):

Control Room Survey Operating Experience Review Task Analysis B. Activities

1. Control Room Survey A survey of each control room and control panel as defined in Section I.C. will be conducted to determine conformance with applicable human engineering design guidelines. The guidelines and the survey results will be documented. The survey will be divided into a physical survey, an engineering survey, and an environmental survey. The physical survey will assess the suitability of individual components, labels, workspace, and communication and protective equipment through the use of mock ups and on site inspections. The engineering survey will address the guidelines that can be reviewed by examination of design engineering drawings and documentation. The environmental survey will study control room conditions such as lighting, noise, and temperature. Discrepancies (HED's) will be documented for review during the Assessment Phase of the Control Room Review. Consultants will be used to support these activities as mentioned in Section II.

2. Operating Experience Review The objective of the Operating Experience Review is to identify features in control room operation or design which could degrade effective control of the plant. The review will focus on two primary areas, (1) an operator survey, and (2) a review of operating history.

The operator survey will consist of questionnaires and follow up interviews conducted by consultants with a representative sample (approximately 50%) of licensed operators and those operators in-license training. In addition, Duke operations training instructors-and/or-simulator instructors may be interviewed to ascertain their perspective on problera areas in control room operation. Control board photographs will be used for reference and detailed problem identification. Cont rol Room i Problem / Suggestion forms will be placed in each control room for 1

l C/1800023

.~ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ~ . . _ _

Paga 10 of 23 additional operator input after the interviews have been completed.

The operator survey will provide the Review Team with practical information on problems in control room operation and design

, which may not'be identified during the other review activities.

HED's will document the problem areas identified in this survey. ,

While both normal and emergency operations will be covered, it  ;

is' expected that problems encountered during normal operation will-be most prevalent. This information will be used to determine if events other than those covered by the NSSS vendor emergency procedure guidelines should be addressed in the Task Analysis.

The operating history review will examine selected documents (i.e., Station Incident Reports, LER's, etc.) to determine Control Room design problem areas which are applicable to Duke

~

Nuclear Stations. Such problem areas will be documented by HED's.

3. Task Analysis 3

The primary objective of Task Analysis is to evaluate the human engineering suitability of controls and displays to support the effective accomplishment of operator actions required during certain normal and emergency operating conditions. The Task Analysis activity will identify operator tasks, determine the t controls and displays required to perform those tasks, and i evaluate the suitability of the required controls and displays

! during a walk-through of each task analyzed.

Thorough systems analyses of transients and accident conditions have been performed by the NSSS vendors in their development of

, emergency procedure guidelines (EPG's). These generic guidelines define the functions allocated to the control room operating crew to provide effective operation and control of the plant under a variety of abnormal and emergency conditions. As such, the EPG's form a sound technical basis for the development of plant-specific emergency procedures as well as the Task Analysis. The Review Team will select a representative combination of EPG's which collectively include operation of

, most emergency systems. These EPG's will be used as the basis

! for the determination of operating tasks during the task

analysis activity.

4 j While the emphasis of the task analysis activity will be on emergency operations, problem areas in normal operations identifiea in the Operating Experience Review will be selected for analysis.

' Task Analysis will be conducted by a team for each plant, consisting of a Senior Reactor Operator and a systems engineer.

In addition, a human factors consultant, experienced in the application of task analysis, will be utilized to help define C/1800023

Paga.11 of 23 and develop a usable, cost-effective methodology using proven task analysis techniques and to provide on going human factors assurance.

e 4

1 i

4 k

'i J

1 f

s 1

I i

l 4

1 C/1800023

Paga 12 of 23 4

V. ASSESSMENT PHASE

, A. Objectives i

j The objectives of the control room review Assessment Phase are to

evaluate the significance of the human engineering discrepancies 4

(HED'.s) which represent the end products of the Review Phase, to

, identify and justify tt.cse discrepancies which should tie corrected,

i. and to evaluate the extent of any proposed control room modifications. The Assessment Phase will begin after the HED's are l l generated. I i

i B. Description 1

} In general, it is expected that three broad classes of HED's wi.11 be 1

identified during the review phase: HED's with a safety significance to emergency response, HED's whose correction would contribute to improved normal operation, and HED's whose correction would provide a j general human factors enhancement of the control room. A i categorization method will be developed to facilitate the retrieval l of HED's from the data base in a format consistent with the manner in

! which HED assessment will be performed.

4 In addition, assessment criteria and guidelines will be developed to l aid the Review Team in the analysis and prioritization of HED's. The

! guidelines will be designed to assess the potential for causing or j contributing to operator error, the plant safety consequences of such j

error, solution costs, and feasibility. The significance of the HED will be defined as some combined " score" resulting from evaluations i in these areas. Human factors consultants will participate as j necessary in this phase.

i Some HED's may be corrected by simple surface enhancement techniques, j such as changing labels, adding demarcation lines or mimic lines, l etc. In some cases, training may be the only technique needed to l resolve HEDs. Correction of other HED's may require more extensive j measures. If it is determined that the correction must involve j movement, modification, or addition / deletion of controls and/or

! displays, then these corrections will be evaluated with other i alternatives and with consideration of how the corrections will

! impact the existing control room (consistency and compatibility),

i plant availability, and operator training, performance, and l procedures. Proposed modifications may be made on the mock-ups and i evaluated with procedures to determine their overall effectiveness.

Experienced operators will be used to evaluate alternative

. approaches. Established human factors guidelines will also be used j to review proposed modifications.

C. Report i

! A final report will be prepared containing Review Phase j methodologies, generated HED's, the assessment criteria, and the results of the Assessment Phase including priorities, proposed 4 changes, etc. Additionally, this report will document i

i i C/1800023 4

. . . , - , - - - - . . - . - - . . - - . , - - - . . - , - - - . - , , - , - , - - - , - . . - , , , . ---.,.-_.---.--,--,,-,,,,,,-..--m.w,

,,w--, , - , , , - . - - , - . -

1 Page 13 of 23.. .

recommendations for implementation of criteria and procedures to be

utilized in evaluation of future changes. This report will be submitted to the Steering Committee for review and approval. An executive summary will be provided to aid upper management and others in their review.

^

o o

9 1

4 i

I

, C/1800023 i

t -.

- - Page 14 of 23 VI. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE i A. Objective The primary objective of the Implementation Phase is to implement modifications, procedures and training as necessary to resolve significant human engineering discrepancies (HED's) identified in the Assessment Phase.

- B. Description Modifications required to resolve significant HED's will be implemented through the existing station modification process. The station modification process is described by the Administrative Policy Manual for Nuclear Stations in the Nuclear Production Department and by the Quality Assurance Program of the Design j Engineering Department.

l Since the completion of all selected corrections through the station i

modification process may take a considerable amount of time, the i' implementation and follow-up activities will rely upon normal line organizations both at the station and in the General Office.

Therefore, the HED(s) and the resulting modification request (s) must

] be very explicit as to what is to be done.

An organized transition will be made between the Review Team and the j line organizations to assure effective implementation of the results

of the Control Room Review. The Steering Committee will be

responsible for defining and implementing this transition.

?

C. Future Control Room Modifications In order to ensure adequate human factors considerations for all l, modifications that are considered after the Control Room Review Team j has completed its activities, the line organizations responsible for station modifications will implement the necessary criteria and

, procedures to evaluate the human factors aspects of all future

] control room modifications. Proposed solutions should be reviewed by J those responsible for operating the plant. The mock-ups used during  ;

i the Control Room Review will be an excellent tool for all future '

j modification activities and, therefore, consideration should be given i

to maintaining the mock-ups in some form for future use.

i 4

l C/1800023

-.,_p-,--,-y-ymg-,.y,--,w,+ - - - - --,ewy-r g - - - -- , - , - - - , . - . -,, ---, , _ , , , ,mpwm ,.-.m e- .--

Page 15 of 23 VII. PROGRAM INTERFACES

~

Several other programs are to be coordinated.with the Control Room Review '

Program. These programs are the following:

1. Emergency Procedures Upgrade Program -

2. Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) Prograi "-

3. Post-Accident Monitoring Assessment Program Coordination of these programs is necessary because Ehe approaches takel?'

and items implemented in one program may directly or indirectly affect-the other programs.

The relationship of one program and its activities to other prog. rams and '

their activities is shown in Figure 8. As shown, the following relationships can be determined: ,

SPDS completed relatively early Emergency procedures upgrade completed prior to the implementation of control board changes Control Room Review, which includes the implementation of centrol board changes, will take the longest t:me 6

SPDS and post-accident monitoring assessment should be completed prior to the completion of the Control Room Review.

• Jpecial training will be provided for upgraded emergency procedures

• Training on procedure revisions and plant modifications will be provided per existing training programs.

• Other programs will be revised as necessary after the Control Rocn

, Review is completed.

a.

I 1

i C/1800023 ,

Page 16 of 23 DUKE POWER COMPANY CONTROL ROOM REVIEW PROCESS i

CONTROL ROOM REVIEW p - - - -

q TECHNICAL

INTERCHANGE

r SPDS REVIEW PHASE

} .-

4 1

' EMERGENCY i

• PROCEDURE  :

HED'S UPG RADE t

u l POST ASSESSMENT ACCIDENT PHASE MONITORING ASSESSMENT I

SIGNIFICANT HED'S v UPDATE RESULTING FROM MODIFICATIONS IMPLEMENTATION PHASE i

I L _ _ _ _J e

IMPROVEMENTS TO CONTROL ROOM l

FIGURE 1

u e HM O% NL J Ts

-1 idd^I (+ t

.,i ^' ". :.

u<g ugu g

E f=

j 2 e

D R

A O

B u L A T O

> N R O I R N F O c

L s A e C 2

u 2 R I

T C

&M E 10 L E

H S0 O T1

._ T E I 1 e _

_ ..e e.. IIe a w I .e. As L

NL .

RA ET UO 1 eam e :-

P Ei e _

O E T NN s OO t e CC i e

s u

O o i R A

o s

t T o fJ R

, u T N

. R F O

,A c ls #

L A

c i

R T

.g c E

L E

=3 cg-

} i.

. .} ,-

-;l:

3O m6 3 J l  !; ,1i ,.  : I1 l ,,1 iJ, bl4 - 1i i ill  ! J l

r 'Ee ~ co osmJ L n

5># c v>2au s

u<c.m. uhn u<

/ a. : . '

• e. .

.7;f q .1,; .y u>3 2

_ n Eso Sti On OAm LPo f;.'

u 3M S

' TO I

O S R N R U 1 OE U L B B T L T U AB EO E N CI 3 RA N T R

O M E T I P ON R M O CO F D

OC Y W

S V

K S

2 5

nn<m a

f *

• _ . /. .

d. "' .:

% 2"..-

ngC2m u l, i f I :4 ' t !i  ; ll  ;-

- i4j;. ,<] ,!

E . I> l !j ,! :lII, <

Page 19 of 23

.m ummen. p. m /

/

t*

si.

lill I ji!

=

.V 51  ::

. I -

e usumm 6..........p..p........m.z....=r...e=.....

.. . gg

.w.==

=,...

g; g .s.. g:gi 9 ...-.

"..~'

..............:-,!....... T._.i.... ,:....:.......

i -

,i; -

, l- .

t Wto .nsc9 9 f f p .:.....- j; j

- = i i -

. .a V mm-.m b I8I

- em - le -

g: e za e :':1-;; I i y

........ ... . y 20 y ; u- 'u.

l mJ .

sg gg g3 ,

e >. IE2

-Z I*f 30 gl X ou = -

3 v

- n -u -

3a 13 1 g

. . r ocac usac g y

~

...........~..:...,.......:.......3...........

. tlj s s

: 4 g'

~

...............u..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . !ll a

• y~ m.ei n

!! I I 8 DB FIGURE 4

l- * . . . .. .' . . _ . . . . . . , . . . . .,. .- , . . . _ , . - , . ;. a, . ., ..

. ~ :g

1. . I  :

e i 1a.1 i  :

e Laj .

e .

e e a e e e e * '

s . * ,

I e e luc 3 e theC2 'e SuCl

• 2mCg e

a a

e 248C2 2 tac 3 e

• t e

o. i. .

!\ i e

SuC4

........._ 2 mace

? . . . . . . . . . .

tuC5 IMCIO cannavon s urinason s 2ucto wast e saets 2 tac 5 a

'. C; 3 w .....

.x a .gs..

...~,z t k.3 s

IuCF 2uCF

.-...-...... uC 15 tuCs

.m tuCin 2nsa

............ 2mCin Q . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C CATAWBA UNITS 1 & 2

n tuCe CONTROL ROOM m 2ence us l

, e .

I uCs4 1 l w *

.; . y ineC 2 e' tuC13  ; e. 2escia  ; 2asc s2

.. . . , .. . . . . ,:;..F...

ese *4 e .***6 C.*,.~.*.

.- ,e h* e neau cae

, M Z

O ac et aua seetag toose pants neuct e am astea ret 0c este a asuce s ass tocas pants aus metas maca se necesetose seest nas esass nas escas nas epops

- sesst caussetese naCm Se esvD SenW

- "U, gn 4

e=t-van a NWO senW O

- east :== a . 89 N

N I

FRONy -

C)

FRONT C3

-b aun asaav ava netav act anon ace means sevo senv nacaer aus netav aue negav N naca en n cone sees rawe t *as se a encons sust nacaas e=t in= a

~ maca en .,n senv LJ

- u E a ~

• =t-saa e

,- W FRONT 7

iRONI 6;

..,,e FHONT M*

1 .. .*

IRONT

.e.*,, .

.e.

I I

Paga 21 of 23 L

i DUKE POWER COMPANY CONTROL ROOM REVIEW MANAGEMENT APPROACH STEERIN'G COMMITTEE i

t REVIEW TEAM CONSULTANTS i

{

l I LINE ORGANIZATIONS ,

P I

l l FIGURE 6 f

F

,, . .- - - - - - . . - , , - - . . . - . - , ,,--.,,,,,,_na , , , - ..------,p. ,-----a,.,,,

CONTROL ROOM REVIEW REVIEW PHASE ACTIVITIES CONTROL ROOM SURVEY OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW TASK ANALYSIS REVIEW AIDS OPERATOR SURVEY - SELECT SELECT CONSTRUCT CONTROL OTHER NSSS VENDOR PLANT R60M

• OPERATING EMERGENCY SPECIFIC OPERATING HISTORY REVIEW

, GUIDELINES

. FOR ANALYSIS __

I t i r DEVELOP TASK DESCRIPTIVE DATA 3

o C l '

3 m ygsg

" WALK-THROUGHS I

i r SIMULATOR STUDIES OF SELECTED OPERATING SCENARIOS i r ir i , i ,

I GENERATE HE D'S y Y i$

CATEGORIZE H E D'S U

) i 1 TO ASSESSMENT $

.; PHASE i

i DUKE POWER COMPANY l CONTROL ROOM REVIEW l

PROGRAM INTERFACES .

DEVELOP & IMPLEMENT _

REVISE EMERGENCY EMERGENCY PROCEDURES PROCEDURES o

?

TRAINING TRAINING 4

{

. DEVELOP & IMPLEMENT _

REVISE SPDS SPDS .

n 21 a

C n i r m

" REVISE CONTROL

CONTROL ROOM REVIEW +

EPG BOARD d ,

n OPERATOR EXPERIENCE POST ACCIDENT MONITORING EVALUATION (R.G.1.97)

O!

, O TIME [

j i

e .

1 1

Appendix A Revision Log Rev. 0 3-1-82 Rev. 1 4-1-82 Rev. 2 6-17-82 Rev. 3 2-15-83 l

4

. . l 4 . 0 f hl Tk 0 a

] E: $3 3

~

$. n -

.g a

e: $"

u,, t a . t 3 : '

-o Fel 2 e

.u :s

t 3 :

@s

~

*: .c .  :

e 25 das F:g  :*:

.. .g u 3': ": p. ,

,s s:gu  :

ii

, ng 3 3

.c  ::  : . .: .u. h". 8

= s ,!*ag

- 5'E 1 u 328 .E 0 $8, 0 1, $ h ". $

~

1. 2 j'gJ ~

W 2

~

'TT a

s; aj

?.jt

'3. ; a 353

$-c i.l jI.c - { g ,: . g":: - -

e.

g

. E .,

,ca

=

d

=~:

i.

• 5g .

I.

3

. g j11r nt J a. v .g x

. als e . el Eg .

ut .

=23 le s.

t t

59'4 w y av 2.

Eat

2g g [35 I I al:

. 3.: .

, 4 $ y $

Is - . 3 = 313

t. -

2

.a:

g a b - -

1 -

g. . . . . -

n):

I

- * =gEo 8 3 3 3 a

a IS i=

B.$" fI 3 'S O .

O 7. 2  : lll O, # ,:

l

~3 a -

g -

W

g "

.a I .

W

..a w .

g .. ._i "M . ". O.

. S ".

.. ". _W S

S

. " _E "W _.S ". S.

I 3 .

, i 25 St 3"3 84 y

5 ,4 4

as2

• • 1 i,#

52 E2

.: s .

,l E y e M I I I 3 I vs y I"  :  :  :  :  : e a == 's

+

l .b 5 2= b $ 5 .S '.S b t'o $ $

$. N 5. J .".

Ed 2.! J A 2 Eue I

2 8 .* e t I $JJ C8#

t dJ *

.t N

=

$ t 2 5 2 2 . 3_

lf J.

$ ." . J l T .I .

s" lJ T TI 3 g gg T :  :  ::  : 3 . ":

'i I .  !

.r,1 ."!_

• 3.

• 6 . *w X. 2o J J*

S j._.E .h" 3 } :W. .. .h' E : wT 3 .K.. .U. 3 .f. E 6

i l R ud uM. 6-

. s M

n y

=:a ci > a .t n  :..

w u (, - .e a y h .. ,, .-

.. g

• gh U a 5 C z ,!

n 3 1: .I id E l

.a 4

a a. =

=

= <

u

=

g 1

i d a  ; J J .

i e; i a >:

J Appendix B r

Revision Log Date Pages Affected 3-23-82 All 6-1-82 All 2-15-83 All

DUKE POWER COHPANY NUCLEAR STATION CONTROL EOOH DESIGN REVIEW e

SinMARY OF OUALIFICATIONS FOR REVIEW TFAM PERSONNEL Ceneral Qualifications Nuclear Qualifiestions Position Academic Emperience Academic Experience Instrumentation and Controls Engineer Hichael R. Crews 3.5.E. Degree (1973) 2 years - Electrician, 3 years - (1975-1978)

Supervising Design Engineer Ele:trical Engineering U.S. Navy (1967-1969) Electrical Division Spacial Univ. of North Carolina at Projects in economic compari-Charlotte sons, nuclear plant cost estimates, mathematical and HS Degree - (1975) physical modeltog Electrical Engineering Ohio State University 2 years - (1978-1980)

Electrical Division Staff Hanagement Training Engineer - staffing, annual Duke Power Company. budgets, training (engineer-1978 and 1982 fag, adelaistrative. QA) and licensing activities.

5 days - Human Factors -

Engineer Course (1982) 2 years - (1980-1982)

(MIT) Control Systems Equipment, Cherokee SSILS. Catawba Professional and McCutre Isolation and Nydrogen Mitigation Systems Registered Professional Engineer, N.C. & S.C. 1/2 year - (3/1/82-9/15/82)

Control Complex Engineering Hember, IEEE and the Group - responsible for Power Engineering Society Control Room / Control Board Engineering for Oconee, Member. KUTAC CRDR Working McGuire, Catawba and Cherokee Croup Review Team Participation Review Team Leader (9/15/82 to Present) 4 I

e DUKE POWER COMPANY NUCLEAR STATION CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW StH4ARY OF OUALIFICATIONS FOR REVIEW TFAM PERSONNEL Ceneral Qualifications Nuclear Qualifications Posit 1on Academic Expe rie nce Academic Experience i

4 Electri' cal Instrumentation I & Controls Engineer i

! R. H. White Bachelor of Electrical 1 year Design Engineering - Duke Nuclear Training 10 years total Design DIsign Engineer II Engineering (1970) Hydro Station Design Keovee Program (1970) Engineering experience on Georgia Institute of and Jocessee 1970-1971 Control Room / control Board Technology engineering and design for nuclear stations.

! 3 days - Human Factors 1 year Design Engineering - Introduction to Nuclear

! Engineering Seminar (1981) Supervisor - Turbine Engineering NC State Univ.

(J. L. Seminara) Cenerator Controls Group, (NE 419) 1972 Belews Creek 1971-1972 2 days - Human Factors 1 year Design Engineering - 2 days - Simuistor/ 6 months - Responsible Engineering Seminar (1982) Supervisor - Control Complex Procedures Familiarization Engineer, McGuire (Dr. T. B. Sheridan - MIT) Concepts & Developments (1982) Preliminary contr'o1 Room .

Croup, Control Room / control Review Team 1980 Board Engineering, Beleve Creek & McGuire 1972-1973-j 2 days - Human Factors 1 1/2 years Design Engineer-

) ! Engineering Seminar ing - Supervisor - Control

j (1984 - (R. H. Pope-CECB, Boards & Equipment Layout a

London) Croup, Control Room / Control Board Design, Oconee, Belevs 1 week - Task Analysis Creek, & McCuire 1973-1975 , Review Team Participation

• Training Course (1982) Core Team Member 1 (H. P. VanCott, Bio- 6 mos. Design Engineering - (2-18-82 to present)

Technology Inc.) Staff Engineer - Control &

4 Instrumentation Section.

l t Management Training Advanced Control, Control .

j Duke Power Company -Room Concepts Development 1' 1973 and 1980 -

4 6 1/2 years Design Engineering 1 ,j PROFESSIONAL - Control Comples Engineering i Registered Professional Group. Responsible for Control Engineer N.C. & S.C. Room / Control Board Engineering

! for McCuire and Cherokee Nuclear Menber ANS4.6 Standards Stations. 1975 - 2/18/82 Croup Men.ber, NUTAC CRDR Working Croup (INPO) i

e DUKE POWER COMPANY NUCLEAR STATION CONTROL RDON DESIGN REVIEW SLR9tARY OF QUALIFICATIONS FOR REVIEW TEAM PERSONNEL Ceneral Qualifications Nuclear Qualifications Position Academic Experience Academic Experience Electrical Instrumentation & ,

Controls Engineer L. T. Harbinson 2 years - Lees-McRae Junior 4 years - Electronic 2 days - Simulator / Procedures 1 year - Desirn Engineering-Design Engineer I College (1964-66) A.A. Technician - U.S. Air Force Familiarization (1982) I&C, Power Systems Control -

Degree (1966-70) McGuire 1974-75 1 1/2 years - Electronic 3 years - Design Engineering l Technician School U.S. Air I&C Turbine Generator Croup-j , Force Catawba 1975-78 4 years - Univ. of Tennessee 4 years - Design Engineering (1970-74) 8.S. Degree IEC Supervisor - Turbine i

Electrical Engineering Cenerator Croup McGuire, P81 I

-1978 to 2/18/82 Hanagement Training Duke Power Company 1979 6 months - Design Engineer- ,

ing - Oconee 1.97 Study 1981 a 2 days - Human Factors Engineering Seminar (1982) Review Team Participation (Dr. T. 8. Sheridan - HIT) Core Team Hember (2/18/82 to Present) 2 days - Human Factors .

Engineering Seminar (1982)

(Blo Technology)

I week - Task Analysis

• Training Course (1982) j (H. P. VanCott, Bio -

Technology) *

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

t i

DUKE POWER COMPANY NUCLEAR STATION CONTROL ROON DESIGN REVIEW 8 SLRetARY OF QUALIFICATIONS FOR REVIEW TEAM PERSONNEL Ceneral Qualifications Nuclea c Qualifications Position Academic Experience Academic Emperience Ameistant Nuclear Control

• Operator V. C. Truesdale Jr. 2 years - Furman University A.A.S. Dessee (1978) 1 year - Co-op Student (Catawba) Tri-County Technical Collega Oconee Nuclear Station BS Degree - Biology (1975) Nuclear Engineering (1976-1978)

Cardner-Vebb College 6 weeks - Oconee Systems 1 year. 3 nontics - Nuclear 1

Courses in Marketing. Class (1978) Equipment Operator - Ocunee i Hanagement and Entomology Nuclear Station (3-7-77 to l at Winthrop College (1979- 6 wecks - Nuc] car Preparatory 6-1-78) 1981) and Nuclear Fundamentals Tech-nical Training Center (1979) 3 months - Spent Fuel

Cas & Arc Welding Sipping. Spent Fuel Trans-3 York Technical College I week - Besearch Reactor port and New Fuel Receiving

• I (1980) Training - N.C. State Crew - Oconee Nuclear '

(

University (1980) Station (1978) f I week - Ceneral F.lectric 3 years. 6 months - Nuclear l Turbine cenarator Training Equipment Operator - Catawba

Catawba Nuclear Station (1980) Nuclear Station - (7-5-78 to 4

j 8-15-82) 1 week - De Laval Diesel l Cenerator Training - Catawba 10 months - Procedure siuclear Station (1980) Development - Catawba Nuclear i

Station (1978-1979) 3 months - Systems and Fro-cedure Specific Training - 10 months - Assistant Nuclear Catawba Nuclear Station (1981) Control Operator - Catawba Nuclear Station - (3-15-82 to 3 months - Cold License certi- 12-1-82) fication Classroom Training (1981) Review Team Participation Core Team Member 3 months - Cold License certi- 02-1-82 to Presen@

fication Simulator Training (1982)

I week - Westinghouse Core Damage Hitigation Training (1982) l ,

i j

i i

DUKE POWER COMPANY NUCLEAR STATION CONTROL ROOH DESIGN REVIEW e

'l SLM1ARY OF QUALIFICATIONS FOR REVIEW TEAM PERSONNEE.

Position Academic Experience Academic Emperience Assistant Shif t Supervisor

P. A. Thompson (McGuire) 6 months - Elec'trical School 6 years - Electrical 6 morsas - Nuclear lower 4 years - Electrical Operator (1970) U.S. Navy Operator (EH) U.S. Navy Scho,1, U.S. Navy (1971) (1972 75) USS Leuta & Clark Nuclear Program SSBN-644 1 week - Westinghouse 6 months - Prototype Training j Turbine Cenerator Training SIC Power Plant - U.S. Navy 3 years - Utility Operator 4

(1975) (1971) McGuire Nuclear Station (1975 78) ,

j Hanagement Training - 8 months - Nuclear Fundamen-McGuire Nuclear Station tal and McCuire Systems 6 months - Procedure Develop-(1982) Specific Ttaining (1976) ment (1976)

, I week - Task Analysta I week - Westinghouse MSSS 2 years - Assistant Control

, Training Course (1982) Design Training (1976) Operator - McCuire Nuclear j (H. P. VanCott, Rio Station (1978-80)

, Technology, I6:.) 6 weeks - PkCutre Systems .

and Procedures Training 1 1/2 years - Control operatar (1977) McGuire Nuclear Station RO Cold License -Unit 1 6 months - Cold License Startup (1980-82)

Certification Training (1978) 3 months - Control Board Upgrading (1980) 4 weeks - Control Room Observation Training at Assistant Shift Supervisor oconee Nuclear Station (1978) SRO Licensed (March 1982-9-1-82)

,j i

2 months - License Prepar-story Training (1979) Review Te== Farticipation Core Team Hember 1 week - STA Training (1980) (9-1-82 to Present) 1 day - THI II Transient .

Training (1980)

I week - Core Damage Nati-gation Training (1980) 4 months - SRO License Preparatory Training (1981)

DUKE POWER COMPANY NUCLEAR STATION CONTROL ROOH DESIGN REVIEW #

SUPMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS FOR DEVIEU TEAM PERSONNEL Ceneral Qualifications nuclear Qualtitcations Position Academic Experience Academic Emperience Assistant Shift Supervisor

• C. McKendre Haynes, Jr. 2 years - Clemson Univ. , 1 year - Whitestone Chemical A.N.E. Degree (1976) - Tri- 1 year Total as Co-op (Oconee) Chemical Engineering (1970- Company - Maintenance & County Technical College - Student - oconee Nuclear

72) Construction - Lab Technician Nuclear Engineering Station (1975 - 1976)

(1970-1972) 3 days - Human Factors 6 weeks - Oconee Systems 1 year - Nuclear Equipment Engineering Seminar Class - (1976) Operator Oconee Nuclear j (J. L. Seminara) Station (11/22/76-9/1/78) j 2 days - Human Factors 3 months - Oconee R. O. 1 year, 3 months - Assistant

}

Engineering Seminar (1982) License Class (1978) 20 Control Operator - Oconee (81o Technology, Inc.) License Number OP 4804 Nuc1 car Station (9/1/78-(8/22/78) 1/14/80)

I week - Task Analysis 6 weeks - License Requali- 2 years - Nuclea'r Control Training Course (1982) fication Class (1979) Operator - oconee Nuclear (H. P. VanCott, Bio- , Station (1/14/80-11/1/81)

Technology Inc.)

I week - Special Class -

B&W Small Break Analysis Present - Assistant Shift Oconee Probabilistic Risk (1979) Supervisor (11/1/81-2/18/82)

Assessment Review Parti-cip_ ant Shift Technical Advisor 6 weeks - License Requali- 11/1/81-2/18/82) 5/1782 - 12/1/82 fication Class (1980)

Review Team Participation 4 months - Oconee SR0 Core Team Member License Class (1980) Sao (2/18/82 - Present)

License Number SOP 3873 (2/10/81)

I week - Shift Technical Advisor Ttaining Class '

(1981) 6 weeks - License Requali-fication class (1981) 9 weeks - R&W Simulator Training - (1978-1983) 6 weeks - License Requali-fication Class (1982) 2 days - >kCuire $1mulator/

Procedures / Systems Familiar-tration (1982)

_ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _