'Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Detailed Control Room ...The overview is presented in a...

eSUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION

DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REYIEW

PROGRAM PLAN

~go i~

IlfoaL oC'~c S<"

Prepared for

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Pennsylvania Power II Light Company

'20h070702 820603"PDR, ADOCN'5000387,~,

A " -: „,. "PDR. 't,

SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATIONDETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW

PROGRAM PLAN

PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

~ 0 INTRODUCTION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 11

1 .1 Purpose.........................................................l1 ~ 2 Scope ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1

2. 0 PROJECT MILESTONES........... ~ ~ ~ ~...... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . 4

2.1 Management of the Review Process................................72.2 Structure of the Review Team...................................162.3 Integration of the NUREG 0700 Detailed Control Room

Review with Other Current Human Factors Activities........'.....21

3.0 DOCUMENTATION AND DOCUMENT CONTROL... ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~.......... ~ .. ~............243.1 Input Documentation............................................243.2 Output Documentation...........................................253.3 Documentation of Control Room Inventory........................26

.0 PROCEDURES FOR THE DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW. ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ..274.1 Operating Experience Review ...................................274.2 Control Room Inventory.........................................284.3 Control Room Survey............................................294.4 System Function Review and Task Analysis.......................304.5 Verification of Task Performance Capabilities..................344.6 Validation of Control Room Functions ..........................36

5.0 HED ASSESSMENT AND RESOLUTION................................. .e....395.1

., 5.2HED Categorizatxon .....;......................................39HED Resolution ................................................42

STAFF RESUMES.................oo..oo.woo.oooo.ooooooooo......o..ooAPPENDIX A

TASK ANALYSIS FORM SAMPLE.. ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .APPENDIX B


1.0 INTRODUCTION

The approach generated for conducting The Susquehanna Steam ElectricStation Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) is described in thisProgram Plan. The purpose of the Program Plan as well as the scope aredescribed in Chapter 1. The plan for managing and staffing the DCRDR isdescribed in Chapter 2. The anticipated input and output documentation and

the procedures for controlling both are contained in Chapter 3. The

methodology for actually performing the DCRDR is described in Chapter 4.

Finally, a systematic approach for assessing any human engineeringdiscrepancies (HEDs) that are identified as a result of the DCRDR aredescribed in Chapter 5.

1.1 ~Pus se

The purpose of the Program Plan is to ensure that the Detailed Control~ ~

Room Design Review adheres to the guidelines of NUREG-0700, the results arederstandable and usable, and the benefits of human factors engineering are

reflected in the control room design. Since the design review is ratherinvolved and at times complex, the Program Plan also documents the reviewprocess, providing traceability of both the process and the results of thereview.

1.2 ~ecc e

The scope of the DCRDR includes:

~ Review input documentation, including any applicable operatingexperience data, plant design information, and applicable standardsand regulations

~ Provide an inventory of the control room instrumentation


Perform a control room survey which compares the control room designwith the accepted human engineering guidelines contained in NUREG-0700

which were not specifically addressed as part of the preliminaryreview

~ Determine the input and output requirements of control room operatortasks by preparing a list of systems and system functions and

analyzing specific control room operator tasks

~ Verify that the tasks analyzed can be performed in the existingcontrol room

~ Insure the control room functions analyzed can be performed throughthe use of the plant simulator or a mock-up.

~ Assess human engineering discrepancies uncovered in any of the review

steps and formulate resolutions.

Each of these items is described in more detail in Chapter 4. A flowchart depicting the interaction between the various items is shown inFigure l.


FLOW CHART OF DETAILED CONTROLROOM DESIGN REVIEW ACTIVITIES

CONTROL ROOMINVENTORY

OP E RATI NG

EXPERIENCEREVIEW

CONTROL ROOMSURVEY

SYSTEM FUNCTIONREVIEW 5

TASK ANALYSIS

VER IF ICATION OFTASK PERFORMANCE

CAPAB I LITIES

CONTROL ROOMVALIDATION

HED ASSESSMENT

HED CORRECTION/R ESO LUTION

Figure 1


2.0 PROJECT MILESTONES

Project Milestones are outlined below. Phase l refers to the Preliminary(NUREG-1580 based) Control Room Review. The tasks have been identified and

are in the final stages of implementation; Phase II refers to the Detailed(NUREG-0700 based) Control Room Design Review.

2.0.1. Initial Meetings

~ Establish review team structure and contacts

~ Obtain existing, applicable documentation

~ Begin review of program plan

2.0.2. Review Documentation

~ Prepare for the control room inventory and survey

~ Identify factors that may impact operator performance

~ Begin operating experience review

2.0.3. Conduct Phase I Tasks

~ Survey the control room

~ Survey operating personnel (*questionnaire)

*A self-administered questionnaire was implemented in lieu of an interviewsurvey. The questionnaire included items that were suggested in Appendix C

(Control Room Operating Personnel Interview Protocol) of NUREG-0700. The

questionnaire approach was used during the preliminary review with


atisfactory results.

2.0.4. Review Systems Documentation

~ Obtain information for defining systems and system functions

2.0.5. Define System Functions and Analyze Operator Tasks

~ Identify those systems important to safety

~ Identify other important systems

~ Prepare functional description of the systems

~ Identify operating events to be analyzed

~ Analyze tasks involved in the identified operating events

2.0.6 Conduct Phase II Tasks

~ Review by DCRDR team

~ Video-tape operating events identified in previous step

~ Revise pre-filled task analysis forms

~ Inventory the control room


2.0.7. Analyze Data to Identify HEDs~ ~ ~

~ Determine HEDs from Video-tapes and completed task analysisforms

~ Determine HEDs from Control Room Survey

~ Determine HED's from Operator Questionnaire

2.0.8. Assess HEDs

~ Categorize HEDs

2.0.9. Prepare Final Report

~ After project team review, prepare final report

2.0.10. Project Progress Reports and Memorandum Reports

2.0.11. HED Correction and Resolution


.1 Mana ement of the Review Process

An overview of the sequence of events that comprise the DCRDR iscontained in this section. The events described include data gathering,analysis and documentation of results. The overview is presented in a

sequential manner, although individual events may at times occur

concurrently.

2.1.1. Initial Meetin s

During the initial meetings, the following objectives were met:

~ Establish review team structure and contacts

~ Gather existing, applicable documentation

Each of these objectives is discussed below.

~ Establish review team structure and contacts. During the

initial meetings, individuals from various organizations were

identified as members of the DCRDR team to take into account

numerous skills required such as Operations, ISC, Human Factors

Engineering, etc. Specific authority and responsibilities foreach team member were identified and agreed upon. In addition,an individual from each organization was designated as the

primary contact for that organization. Reference Section 2.2

for the proposed structure of the review team.

~ Obtain existing, applicable documentation. The initial data

gathering activity began at the initial meetings. The specificdocumentation is listed in Section 3.1.

2.1.2. Review Documentation

The documentation that was obtained at the initial meetings was

reviewed to:


~ Prepare for the control room inventory and survey

~ Identify factors that may impact operator performance

~ Begin operating experience review. As the Susquehanna planthas had no operating experience yet, a pre-operationalexperience review was implemented. This involved a search ofLER's that generated from similar (BWR type) operatingplants. These LER's were further screened to those thatinvolved personnel errors. These LER's were perused toidentify human errors that could possibly occur at the

Susquehanna plant due to facility similarity.

2.1.3 Conduct Phase I Tasks

~ Survey the control room

~ Survey operating personnel (questionnaire)

At the conclusion of these tasks, a listing of Human

Engineering Discrepancies (HEDs) identified during the Survey and a

listing of inputs to the review from the operating personnel survey

exist. These items were identified with proposed solutions and a

schedule for implementation in the Preliminary Human Factors

Engineering Recommendations for the Susquehanna Steam Electric StationAdvanced Control Room report to the NRC.

2.1.4. Review S stems Documentation

Various documents were reviewed prior to the definition of system

functions. These documents included Chapter 15 of the Susquehanna

Steam Electric Station FSAR, System Fact Sheets, Systems Index,Chapter 15 of Regulatory Guide 1.70 (Revision 3',, Procedures

(Operating Procedures, Emergency Operating Procedures, Off-Normal

Operating Procedures, General Operating Procedures) and the

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Systems Descriptions.


~ ~ ~

02.1.5. Define S stem Functions And Anal ze 0 erator Tasks

From the listing of the plant systems, those systems that are

important to safety and are significant to unit operation were

identified. This identification was based on the FSAR and input from

personnel experienced in plant operations. A brief functionaldescription of each of the previously identified systems will be

prepared.

Concurrent with the above activity, operating events from the

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station FSAR, NUREG-0700 and Chapter 15 ofRegulatory Guide 1.70 Revision 3 were selected for examination. A

matrix of systems important to safety and operating events was then

developed (see Figure 3). Each operating event will be examined todetermine which of the systems it exercises. To ensure a thorough

system examination, those systems that were not necessarily importantto safety but were deemed important to unit operation were also

included in a matrix (see Figure 4).

After the selected operating events have been examined, a deter-mination of which operating events will be subjected to task analysis

will be made. This determination will be based on which events

exercise the most number of systems that are not exercised by other

operating events. A system will be considered exercised based upon

the system performing its functional description. The primary

objective is to perform a task analysis on the events that exercisethe most number of systems. The operator tasks which are involved ineach of the selected operating events will then be analyzed. A

special form for the Task Analysis will then be pre-filled for each

operating event. An example of the Task Analysis worksheet isincluded in Appendix B.

~ ~

~ ~

I

I I

~ . IIIIIIJtIIJLILOIRL- tQL%%NN5%I585LLJLLRLL

~ - LSLN%ÃmSSLSRLLLSLRQL- m358mm58LRSOLOLLLLOR

.. N%RLS%8k%LQLQQLLLLLRR

.. RRLLN%5NRSLQLSLRLLLRRSLIL$%LJILL%IJIJLRRI. 88LLSLQLESQLLLJLQSS

: - QLSLNRENRLSRLLLLLOLR-. mmSLmmQESLLLOLLLRLOQL

. LLLLERERLQLLLLLLLQLR

. LLLLNNSLLLLLLLLLQLL,. LIIJLJJILLJJJ JLQRLRLLLRLSSLLLLLLLLRL~ IIIJS JNNILIJLLLLQRL~ QLRRQKR%LKRRRRQRRRR

~ LRL8LLLLLLRLOLLRLL., ILILNNSR%LE%ILLILLtLL"arLLaaLLaeaaLXLLLaLL-LLSLN%%QQERSSRRLLQRQ" tLILNNSJ1%8 JLIILQLLQLSJ55mmt JLRJLILAILI". NSRLmmmmENLLESLOLLLLRLQ" NNRLLERLRSLLLLRLRLLL". RLSLRLLRRLRLLLLRSL"- mmLLLLLLLLRLLLLLLLL" mNSSLQSLLRLLLRLLRLS

~ ~ ~

~ ~

~ ~ ~

0 ~ 0

~ ~

- 5RL5555555LLQLSRLR~ . 5%RRRRRRSR$ %88RSRSSSRRRRRREESERSREEEEE

- LRRSRRSRERISSRRERRRR- SORR%5%5%%%5%SLRLRQSRR. SLLk%8RRQLR%SROLLLRQLLLRSLOL58555LSRL55- LLQSLQQLRSLLQLSLQL- WRLSWWRSk%QRLRLOQLS" 88%%8%5%LRR%RLSRRQOQR

~ - RR8%WRRRLLLQQSSRQRR- 8888E%ESRSLRLQLRRQSS=. 55LSWSLLOSQLQLLLQL" %5%LSSWLLLRLLQLQLQL'RSLLRSQLRRLLERRRL

.s. %$%QWR%QRLRQQRRQQLRR

. ~ ERRQSRILSRLQQQSLQSSL~ - 58855LRQLRLLQRLL55.. %WW1%8QSRSSLLLLSLRLR%WKSSR%RLQLELLRRRLLL'- %8885E%%LL8888888RLRSRRC%RRRRRSRRRRRERISER . RERRRRRRREES'- ERRRSRRSERRRRRSRRSESR=. SSRSEQLRLLRLOLLRSLLQ: - LR%88LRRLLQLLRRRLLR

. LRERRRLSSRLLQLQQLQL

0I

II

QLRLRLRSLRQSLQQQLO555%L585%58LSLOLRLRLSERQR%SKRERRRRSQQLRQQRR%866QLRRQQLQLLSLRLRLR%LRLRQSSRRLEQLRL88%65%Ã%LWRSLSQLSQRSS5555%55555585RLRSRLLLLLQQRRRSQRL %LOLARSWRLLRSLLRLQORLRLLLRRRRRRRRRSRRROOLORRQLRQORRLOLRQORRQQLLLLLRRLRLLLQRORLRQRLRLRRLSLLSL555RRLQLLQLROLRQLRRRLOSQSORRRRLRRLS8888QQQRLQQRQRQRQRQLRQQQRRLROQRLSRQLRRQS55LRLSRLRLROOLRRLSRSLLRRRRRLRQRRQLRLQLLRQLQRQQLQQLSRSLLQROLQRSRRLQLRSLRQLL555LLL85555LL588QLOLLSLQRSSSLRRQRL .RLLSQOQLRLSSRRRRQL -,88LQQRRRLRLQLLRSQRSQLLRRSL'QRQLRLLQLSRRSLRLOSSQLRLRRLOS

~t

~ I

I

klI

I

- LLQRRLRSSRSLLLLOLR. 5LQRQLRLRLLLOLRLLL~ RQRRRRSQLLLRSROLLRRR. SRLESSRLOSQRQLLLLRQLLR$%888LRSRRLSRRLL

~ - LLLRRLLLQLRQRLQQSL. LRRSOLRLLLRSLLQRLLRLRLRRRLRLRSQRRRQR8888588LROQSLLSLSLSLL$%8ERQRSQSQRRRLQLWE%8LRLLWRLQLLRLLRR%5%ESRR%88LRLQLQLRLLL. 55555L558558LQQOEL88R5885%LRORRQLLLLQL- 885%ERSSSRRRL8%8%8LQR. WWWKSWWQLRRRRRQRLQR. LRQLQLRLRLQLLQRQOL

. - LLSLLRRRRLQRLRLLRL- - LRR%8888LRLQLLORRSS

~ QE%LQLRRRQRLQQRRRQQLSLRLRLLLL555LORLL- SRRL5855555LLLLLRL

:, SSRRLSRLLR%LOLSLLEELQE%5%%%%%%RSRROLLQEQRR

= ~ k%$%%%%RS%QQKRRQLKRRLR%k%5%8888888888LLQLRL: ~ 885%QLQQSLLLLLSOSRL

It

555LRRQRLSQQRR OLLALOQLRQSRRQOLSLRRLLLQLLQRLLLOLORRRLLLQLLQOSLLRQQLRROQLRQLSLQRLLRQLQLRSQLLLQLSLQLRQLLSLLRRSOaraaraaraaaaaeaaaaQQQSLSLRQLLORSRQSQQSQRLQLLRQQLRLRRRRSLQLRRSQRRRRQRSSRLQSLQLLRRLLLRRROSLR88QRLRLQLSQRLRRSQLJLLSRL555555LSLRLLLLLRLQLQLQOQLSQRQLQLQLRLL58555555LLQQQRRRQQRRQRRRRRRRRLLLSQSQLSLSRLSRRRLSELRLL5555LRQLRSRQSSLQRLLQLRQRLLRLQLLSLRQRQSSRLQSRQLRS5555LLLRLLQLLSLSLSLLRLRQLLSLLQLQQRL8RQSLORSSRSLLLQLLQLQLLQLLRRLLLRRRLLQLQLLROOSSSRLLLQQRQLQLLSQSOLRRRRQOQQRLSSRQRRLLSLSRRRSQRR

PENNSYLVANIA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY

2.1.6. Conduct Phase II Tasks~ ~ ~

Scenarios will be conducted to video-tape the operating events

that were analyzed in the previous step.'perators will walk and talkthrough these operating events in the Simulator. The information inthe pre-filled task analysis forms will be reviewed and revised duringthese walk-throughs.

2.1.7. Anal ze Data to Identif HEDs

After the operating event has been video-taped and operators

debriefed, the event will be analyzed using the pre-filled task

analysis forms and the video-tape. The result may be additional HEDs

that were not identified during the control room survey. Analyzable

data will also include results from control room surveys and operatorquestionnaire responses.

2.1.8. Assess HEDs~ ~ ~

I

The HEDs that were identified through the method listed in 2.1.7above will be assessed for their safety implications. This assessment

will be used as an input to the Phase II final report.

2.1.9. Pre are DCRDR Report

The methodology employed in the Control Room Design Review,and the

findings that resulted from the review will be documented in a draftreport prepared by the project team. This draft report coupled withHED documentation will constitute the framework for the final DCRDR

report.

2.1.10. Pro'ect Pro ress Re orts and Memorandum Re orts

To ensure that the activities described in these nine steps are

performed in a timely and cost-effective manner, monthly progress

15


reports will be generated and distributed to the appropriate personnel

each month throughout the project. The progress report will indicateboth funding and scheduling status.

2.1.11. HED Correction and Resolution

HEDs will be analyzed and resolutions will be suggested.

Resolutions may be developed using prior documentation, existing human

factors references, or experimental methods. Implementationmethodologies will be developed and scheduled.

2.2 Structure of the Review Team

The review team is a multidisciplined team of individuals with recognized

expertise in the areas of:

, ~ Human Factors Engineering

~ Reactor Operations

~ Instrumentation and Controls

~ Design Engineering

~ Computer Operations

~ project Management

~ Data Processing

~ Nuclear Licensing

Additional individuals are available to the team when input is requiredfrom other specialties.

The PP&L portion of the review team has the DCRDR Project Director as its

16


~ ~

~~ ~ ~ ~

~

ey person. The individual provides the administrative and technical

direction for the project and has ultimate responsibility for the project.Access to information, facilities and individuals providing useful or

necessary input to the team is coordinated by the DCRDR Project Director.Because of the detailed knowledge of pp&L systems and methods, this individualprovides the cohesive force for the different PP&L department individuals and

vendor organizations involved with this project.

An individual from the Nuclear Support section provides the bridge

between this project and other PP&L human factors activities. This is an

important input to the review since resolution of HEDs identified must be

integrated with other possible changes to the Control Room originating from

changed requirements or design. The individual is cognizant of ongoing human

factors projects.

Plant Operations provides input to the project through daily contact with

the DCRDR Project Director. The Phase I tasks nearing completion are~

~

ontinually being reviewed and evaluated by the operating staff. The input isprovided by an individual versed in nuclear power plant operations.

Instrument and Control expertise is provided by the above team members

and an individual from the Instrument and Control section of PP&L's Nuclear

Power Engineering group.

Nuclear Licensing provides the interface between PP&L and the NRC. One

individual within Nuclear Licensing is identified as the liaison. The unique

individual experiences, training and knowledge provides the basis for the PP&L

portion of the review team.

The General Physics portion of the review team consists of the followingthree positions:

~ Project Manager

~ Project Director

17


~ Project Staff

The project manager is responsible for all assigned project work and

reports directly to the PPSL DCRDR project director.

The individual assigned as project manager of the Control Room Design

Review will be a member of the General Physics Human Factors Engineering

Group. This individual will have the education and experience necessary to

function as project manager and team leader of a Control Room Design Review.

The project director is responsible for ensuring that the project manager

has the support of General Physics Corporate Resources, when necessary, to

support the project. The project director reports through department and

division management to the office of the president of General Physics. The

project director has the responsibility and authority to:

~ assist the project manager in staffing the project

~ coordinate technical support for the project

~ provide administrative support for the project

The project staff members report to the project manager. The staffmembers participate in data collection, analyzing and report writing. The

staff consists of personnel with the following expertise:

~ human factors engineering

~ power plant operations

~ training

~ systems analysis

~ design engineering

18


The Bechtel portion of the review team has a control systems engineering

group supervisor reporting directly to the pp&L DCRDR project Directorthroughout the duration of the DCRDR project. The Bechtel Power Corporation

is the prime contractor for both the engineering design and construction.They were involved with the original control room design and have a detailedknowledge of. the panel design and provide an overall engineering review of the

DCRDR elements. Any interfacing between Bechtel and General Physics team

personnel is coordinated by the PP6L DCRDR Project Director.

A diagram showing the relationships between and among team members isshown in Figure 5.

3.9

HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS I|I RELATIONSHIP

PRESIDENT&

CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER

PRESIDENTPROJECTMANAGER

EXECUTIVEVICE PRESIDENT

OPERATIONS

VICE PRESIDENTTRAINING

&OPERATIONS

ASSISTANTPROJECT

MANAGER

A BISESTI

VICE PRESIDENTNUCLEAR

OPERATIONS

SENIORVICE PRESIDENT

NUCLEAR

VICE PRESIDENTENGINEERING &CONSTRUCTION

NUCLEAR

DIRECTOR

ADVANCEDPOWER

SERVICES

HUMAN FACTORSENGINEERING

PROJECf DIRECTOR

CONTROL SYSTEMSENGINEERING

GROUPSUPERVISOR

* EDUNGER

ENGINEERINGSTAFF

MANAGERNUCLEAR

R. JENSEN

SUPPORT

I

STAFF

I

I

SUPERINTENDENTOF PLANT

SUSQUEHANNASES

ASSISTANTPLANT

SVPERFNTENDENT

MANAGERNUCLEAR PLANT

ENGINEERING

STAFF

O. CARDINALE

— MANAGERNUCLEARLICENSING

SfAFF

W. BARBERICH

TECHNICALSVPPORT

ADMINISTRATIVESUPPORT

O. SURGY

HUMAN FACTORSENGINEERING

PROJECTMANAGER

R. LIDDLE

I I

I

I

I

I

I

I

L I

TECHNICALSVPERVISOR

PLANTENGINEERINGSUPERVISOR

M. OETAMORE

SENIORRESULTS ENGINEER

OCRDRPROJECT DIRECTOR

* RIMSKY

SVPERVISOROF

OPERATIONS

PLANTOPERATIONS

W. SLUSSER

I

I

.I

I

I

I

I

I

REIRRTARIEITY

I

I

I

l

I

l

I

I

J

HVMAN FACTORSENGINEERING

STAFF

NVREG 0700/0801 PROJECT REPORTABILITY

Fi.gure 5


J

.3 Inte ration of the NUREG-0700 Detailed Control Room Desi n Review With

Other Human Factors Activities

The DCRDR will be interfaced with other ongoing human factors programs.

Examples of other relevant work are shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6 indicates the relationship between the NUREG-0700 DCRDR and

other relevant NUREG documents.

The document that initiated the human factors projects at the Susquehanna

Steam Electric Station was NUREG-0660 (NRC Action Plan Developed as a Resultof the TMI-2 accident). This document mandated that a comprehensive human

factors review be performed on the control room. NUREG-0737 (Clarification ofTMI Action Plan Requirements) provided guidance as to what steps Near Term

Operating Licensees should take to fulfillthe comprehensive human factorscontrol room review requirement contained in NUREG-0660. The NUREG-0737

document requires that those applicants for operating licenses who are unable

o complete the Detailed Control Room Design Review prior to issuance of a

license make preliminary assessments of their control rooms.

A preliminary human factors control room review was performed on the

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Advanced Control Room following the

guidance given in NUREG-1580. This review was completed in October 1980.

Use of engineering checklists provided standards for assessment of allproperties of the control panel including safety, grouping, readability oflabels and control discrimination. These checklists were developed based on

the latest established and recommended Human Factors Engineering Criteria.The guidelines contained in NUREG-1580 also supplemented the checklists thatwere utilized during the preliminary review.

After the preliminary report was issued, work was begun on the correctionor resolution of the HEDs uncovered during the preliminary review. Inaddition, the proposed control room painting plan was evaluated from a human

factors perspective. Luminance and illuminance, reflectance, and the

sychological and physiological impact of color were among the factorsevaluated prior to defining an improved painting plan.

21

PENNSYLVANIA POWER 6( LIGHT COMPANY

RELATIONSHIP OF NUREG 0700 DETAILED CONTROL ROOM

DESIGN REVIEW TO OTHER HUMAN FACTORS PROGRAMS

NUREG-0660TMI ACTION PLAN

NUR EG.0737TMI GLARIF ICATION

OTHERACTION PLAN

ITEMS

NUR EG/CR-1580HUMAN ENGINEERING

GUIDE (DRAFT)

NUR EG-0659STAFF SUPPLEMENT

NUR EG-0700CONTROL ROOMDESIGN REVIEW

NUR EG.0801EVALUATION

CRITERIA

Figure 6

22


When NUREG-0659 (Staff Supplement to the Draft Report on Human

Engineering Guide to Control Room Evaluation) was released, comments from the

industry were solicited. Pennsylvania Power and Light Company responded by

providing comments.

When NUREG-0700 (Guidelines for Control Room Design Reviews) was

published in September, 1981, Pennsylvania Power and Light Company began using

the document to guide its Detailed Control Room Design Review project. This

Program Plan is the first step in the process.

To achieve thoroughness in the project, a supplemental checklist was

developed by comparing the prior (NUREG-1580 based) checklist to the

guidelines contained in NUREG-0700 and noting any differences or

discrepancies. Particular attention was paid to those guidelines thatspecified stricter tolerances than before. The checklist was used to perform

another control room survey.

23


3 ~ 0 'DOCUMENTATION AND DOCUMENT CONTROL

A large number of documents will be referenced and produced during the

DCRDR project. Therefore, a systematic method for controlling these documents

is necessary. The input and output documentation that has been identified to

date and the process by which these documents will be controlled is describedin this chapter.

3.1 In ut Documentation

The following documents have been identified as possible reference

material to be used during the review process. As the review progresses it isanticipated that additional material will be identified and referenced.

~ Licensee Event Reports (industry wide or plant specific)

~ Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Final Safety Analysis Report

~ Systems descriptions

~ Piping and instrumentation drawings

~ Control room floor plan

~ Panel layout drawings

~ Panel photographs

~ Lists of acronyms and abbreviations used in the control room

~ Descriptions of coding conventions used in the control room

~ Software descriptions, including CRT formats and content

~ Samples of computer printouts

24


~ Procedures (most recent revisions of emergency, operating, etc.)

~ Operator training materials

~ Control Room Preliminary Assessment

~ Generic Control Room Design Review Report

~ Instrumentation and controls list

~ Annunciator and label engraving lists

3.2 Out ut Documentation

Throughout the review process documents will be processed to record data,

document analyses and record findings. Whenever possible, and appropriate,standard forms will be developed and utilized. The following list represents

~

~

~

preliminary estimate of the types of documents that will result from the

review:

~ Control Room Design Review Program Plan

~ Project schedule

~ List of control room instrumentation

~ Control room survey checklists

~ Operator questionnaire

~ Human Engineering Discrepancy form

~ List of plant systems

~ List of systems represented in the control room

~ Description of control room safety systems functions

25


~ Description of operating events analyzed

~ Task analysis form

~ List of HEDs assessed according to their safety implications

~ Summary Contxol Room Design Review Report

3.3 Documentation of Contxol Room Inventor

All information pertaining to the control room inventory will be storedin the General Physics Corporation PRIME I-1000 computer. Software will be

developed that will allow efficient retrieval and utilization of the inventorydata. The inventory data will also be amenable to interfacing with stored

HEDs for comparison purposes.

26


4.0 PROCEDURES FOR THE DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW

A description of how the DCRDR process is to be accomplished is contained

in this chapter. The review is divided into the following:

~ Operating Experience Review

~ Control Room Inventory

~ Control Room Survey

~ System Function Review and Task Analysis

~ Verification of Task Performance Capabilities

~ Validation of Control Room Functions and Integrated Performance

Capabilities

4.1 0 eratin E erience Review

Two separate steps are involved in reviewing operating experience. The

first is to review available and applicable documentation. The second is tosurvey operating personnel. Each is addressed separately.

4.1.1 Documentation Review

Industry-wide operating experience documentation will be reviewed

in an effort to identify problems that have occurred in the past which

could impinge on control room operations. Therefore, the followingitems will be considered as possible review documents:

~ Licensee Event Reports

~ Final Safety Analysis Report

27


4.1.2 0 eratin Personnel Surve

Operating personnel will be surveyed to elicit informationregarding positive and negative aspects that have been noted duringactual or simulated operation. A questionnaire will be used to sample

operation opinion and elicit recommendations. Areas that will be

addressed include:

~ Controls

~ Displays

~ Annunciators and Alarms

~ Procedures

i~ Computer System

~ Workspace Environment

~ Control Room Workspace

~ Panel Layout

The information collected from the operating personnel survey will be

documented for examination later in the review process.

4.2 Control Room Inventor

An inventory of all instrumentation and equipment in the control room

will be prepared. The inventory will identify systems, subsystems, and

functional groupings; instrumentation related to each; emergency equipment and

communication devices.

28


Prior to actually performing the inventory, the following documents will~

~be reviewed:

~ Control room layout

~ Architecture/engineering drawings

~ Instrumentation and control list

~ Plant operating procedures

~ Control room photographs

~ Piping and instrumentation diagrams.

After the control room inventory is complete, all instrumentation and

equipment in the control room will be identified. The results will be~

~

ocumented in a form suitable for use during the verification of task

performance capabilities.

4.3 Control Room Surve

The purpose of the control room survey is to compare design features ofthe control room to the human engineering guidelines presented in NUREG-0700

and other relevant human factors standards. Checklists will be used to

provide a thorough and efficient method by which direct observation and

measurement of control room features may be undertaken. The checklistsorganize guideline items under the broad categories of instruments, equipment,

layout, and ambient conditions. In the control room survey, checklists willbe used to evaluate each system with the purpose of identifying control room

characterisitcs that do not conform to accepted human engineering practices.Thus, the survey will be used to identify discrepancies which will later be

evaluated as to their. potential effects in the final systems context.

29


While most of the checklist items are applicable at the component level,some guidelines apply to specific task uses of instruments and equipment, task

sequence requirements, communications requirements or other aspects of dynamic

operation. These dynamically-oriented guidelines may be most appropriatelyaddressed from the task or function perspective described in Section 4.4.

Specifically, checklist items will be hierarchically organized forreference ease and will provide space for an indication of compliance or

noncompliance to each guideline. When lack of compliance is found, a specificreason or reasons will be clearly described in an adjacent space. Items which

require further documentation of a human engineering discrepancy will be

described in greater detail as a separate record cross-referenced to the

checklist. Photographic evidence of at least one example of each type of HED

will also be provided if feasible.

Some guidelines will be addressed primarily on a control-room wide basis

such as those that fall in the categories of communications, process computer,

ontrol room layout, and environmental factors. Others will be aproached on a

control-room wide basis first, and then panel-by-panel, such as the

annunciator system and layout. Still other guidelines will be evaluated

element-by-element, and then for general control room consistency, such as

controls, displays, labels, and location aids.

4.4 S stem Function Review and Task Anal sis

This step in the review process is performed to determine the input and

output requirements of operator tasks involved in selected operating events.

These requirements will be used later in the review to assess the adequacy ofthe control room design. For clarity, the procedure for determining these

input and output requirements is divided into the following four parts:

~ Identify systems

~ Describe system functions

~ Identify event sequences

30


~ Identify and analyze operator tasks

Each is discussed separately below.

4.4.1 Identify Systems

From the FSAR, a list of plant systems will be prepared. From

this list, those that are important to safety and signficant to unitoperation will be identified. The primary criteria that will be used

to determine the safety importance of systems is whether the system isdesignated as safety-related. In addition, the following three

factors will be considered:

~ Manual control systems needed by the operator for real-timesupport to prevent plant trips.

~ Manual control systems needed by the operator for post-tripcontrol of decay-heat transfer from the core to the variousheat sinks in the plant.

~ The degree of interconnection of non-class IE systems. A

system which is highly interconnected with other systems may be

a source for causing many systems to fail as failure may

propagate over the connections.

After the systems have been designated as being important to safety, and

significant to unit operation, the control room inventory will be used to

identify which systems are present in the control room.

4.4.2 Describe System Functions

Descriptions of the functions for each of the systems identifiedin the previous step will be prepared. The list is comprised of those

systems that are important to safety and are controlled or monitored

in the control room. These system descriptions will include:


~ the function (s) of the system ("function" isdefined as a mission or goal)

~ under what conditions the system is used

~ a brief explanation of how the system operates

These descriptions will be used as input to the task analysis.

4.4.3 Identify Event Sequences

Two sources of information will be used as the primary basis foridentifying the event sequences to be analyzed. The first source isthe result of the operating experience review. If a particular eventhas caused previous problems in the specific plant or in similarplants, it will be identified for possible analysis. The second

source is the list of systems that were identified as being importantto safety. Therefore, matrices (see Figures 3 & 4) have been

developed to compare "safety important" systems and operatingevents. The matrices in Figures 3 and 4 show which of the "safety-important" systems are expected to be exercised by each of the

operating events. The matrices were developed to ensure that each

"safety-important" system is included in the task analysis. Since

this determination is made prior to the actual real-time simulationsof the operating events, the matrices will be rechecked after the task

analysis to verify which "safety-important" systems are ~actuall

exercised by which operating events. The types of operational events

that will be considered for task analysis are:

~ Reactor Startup

~ Small Break Loss-Of-Coolant Accident

~ Inadequate Core Cooling

~ Anticipated Transient Without Scram

32


~ Reactivity Anomaly

~ Radwaste Tank Failure

~ Large Steamline Break

o Remote Shutdown

~ Shutdown

4.4.4 Identify and analyze operator tasks

After the operational events have been identified, task analysisforms will be pre-filled for each event. The purpose of the pre-filled task analysis form is to document the operator tasks and task

resource requirements necessary to perform the operator functionsrequired in each operating event analyzed.

The task analysis forms will be pre-filled prior to the actualvideo-taping. This pre-filling step will decrease the amount of time

the video-taping will require and will subsequently allow timely and

efficient video-taping sessions. The system functional descriptionswill be used as the starting point duringanalyses. Tasks explicit and implicit inidentified and described. For each task,information requirements will be drafted.on the task analysis form will include:

these paper-and-pencil taskprocedures will also be

operator actions and

The information contained

~ Operator subtasks

~ Description of operator behavior

~ System/subsystem

~ Input requirements

~ Output requirements

33

PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY'I

~ System/subsystem response

e Time sequence

~ System per formance criteria

~ Consequences to plant of error/omission

Functional descriptions and procedures will not provide sufficientdetail to allow the task analysts to fully determine sequentialordering of actions, control/display location, optional elements,

minimum symptoms to diagnose a problem, and other information at thetask element level. This information will necessarily need to be

collected during real-time performance of the events (referenceSection 4.6).

4.5 Verification of Task Performance Ca abilities

The objective of performing this step in the review process is todetermine if the instrumentation and controls that the operators need toperform their tasks are available in the control room and, if they are, todetermine if the design allows for effective human/machine interface. Inorder to ensure that this step has been adequately addressed, the procedure

described below will be performed at least twice. The first time will be

prior to the video-taping when the talk-throughs of the operating events areconducted. The second time will be after the video-tapes of the walk-throughshave been analyzed.

Briefly, the procedure for determining if the necessary instrumentationand controls are available, and if there are any interface problems connected

with the simulated operating event, is as follows:

Information on input and output requirements from the task

analysis forms will be compared with the control room

inventory list.

34


~ Any instrumentation or controls that are required but not

present in the control room will be noted as possible HEDs.

~ If the instrumentation parameters do not agree with the

parameter information requirements, it will be noted as a

possible HED.

~ If instrumentation or control features do not allowsuccessful task completion, they will be noted as possibleHEDs.

~ After the operating event walk-throughs have been analyzed,

additional HEDs may be identified.

~ The possible HEDs identified prior to the walk-throughs will be

evaluated to ascertain if they constitute a discrepancy in the contextof the control room.

After the selected operating events have been analyzed, a check will be

made to determine if the control room contains instrumentation or equipment

that may not be necessary. If this condition exists, additional evaluations

will be performed to ascertain if the instrumentation or equipment should be

altered or removed.

The procedures identified in this section will result in a compilation ofHEDs that have been identified throughout the DCRDR process.

35


.6 Validation of Control Room Functions

After the task analysis has been pre-filled and verified as described inSections 4.4 and 4.5, a walk-through of the selected operating events will be

conducted. At this time, any additional information will be recorded on the

task analysis form. The operating event walk-through will be video-taped toprovide a means for later analyses of the tasks and to minimize the time

required on site. The walk-throughs will be video-taped in a real-timesituation on the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Simulator in lieu ofperforming the taping in the actual control room. The Simulator was chosen by

the review team for many reasons, some of the most important being:

~ The Simulator is a high fidelity representation of the control room.

The physical placement of panels and the instrumentation contained

thereon are faithfully reproduced in the simulator. The review team

has decided that the degree of fidelity is sufficient to warrant the

use of this valuable tool.

~ The use of the simulator precludes the unavoidable disruption thatwould occur if taping were done in the actual control room.

~ The simulator is an exceptionally versatile data gathering device. Ithas the capability of running in slow and fast time in addition toreal time. A video hard copy print-out of significant annunciator

alarm sequence is also provided.

As much information as possible will be collected during the walk-

through. However, it is anticipated that the major portion of the task

analysis information obtained from the walk-throughs will be recorded and

analyzed from the video-tapes at a later date.

The primary purpose of this step is to identify difficulties, based on

the control room design, in accomplishing the necessary tasks involved in the

operating event, to ascertain the validity of previously identified~

~

~

iscrepancies, and to identify any discrepancies not previously recorded.

Once the video tapes have been analyzed, the task analysis forms will have

been completed. Then the procedure described in Section 4.5 will be repeated

36


o finalize the list of HEDs identified throughout the review process.

The categories utilized in the task analysis procedure are noted inFigure 7 and are described below.

~ Subtask: Significant changes in the flow of the overall task

~ Element: Explicit description of behavior, 'e.g. "monitors" or"manipulates"

~ Time Start/Stop: Total time of subtask execution

~ Plant System: System utilized (from system list)

~ Input Information Requirements: Information that is required by the

operator to accomplish the task.

Control Room Information Sources: Information that is availableto the operator (displays, annunciators, procedures or communications

with other operators)

~ Output Implementation Requirements: Controlling instrumentation thatis required by the operator to accomplish the task

~ Control Manipulated or Potential Branching Point in Event: Specificcontrol manipulated or branching point in event (e.g. "Go to EP-00-

00l")

~ System Response From Display/Annunciator: Display/annunciator change

that reflects change in system status.

~ Performance Criteria: Criteria such as time, sequence or technicalspecifications that must be met to accomplish the task.

~ Control Room Requirements Improperly Met: Error noted forinvestigation

37


CATEGORIES IN TASK ANALYSIS

SUBTASK

ELEMENT

TIME START/STOP

PLANT SYSTEM

INPUT INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS

CONTROL ROOM INFORMATION SOURCES

OUTPUT IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS

CONTROL MANIPULATED OR POTENTIAL BRANCHING POINT IN EVENT

SYSTEM RESPONSE FROM DISPLAY/ANNUNCIATOR

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

CONTROL ROOM REQUIREMENTS IMPROPERLY MET

Figure 7

38


5.0 HED ASSESSMENT AND RESOLUTION

Descriptions of procedures for assessing and categorizing HEDs and

recommending corrective actions are contained in this chapter:

~ HED Categorization

~ HED Resolution

A procedure for each follows.

5.1 HED Cate orization

The categorization process is designed to assess and prioritize HEDs.

All identified HEDs will be categorized as follows:

~ Category I — HEDs Associated with Documented Error

e Category II — HEDs Associated with Potential Errors

~ Category III - HEDs Associated with Low Probability Errors ofSerious Consequences

~ Category IV — Non-significant HEDs

The categorization process is shown in Figure 8. Categorization will be

determined by:

~ Previously documented errors

~ DCRDR team judgement of potential for error

~ Cumulative or interactive effectsI

~ Impact on plant operational safety

39


HED CATEGORIZATION PROCESS

IDENTIFIEDHED

DOESNo IT DEGRADE

PERFORMANCE?

Yes

CAT IIISERIOUS

CONSEQUENCES?

DOESIT INCREASE

THE POTENTIALOR ERROR

?

Yes

W PROBABILITYERRORS WITH

SERIOUSCONSEQUENCES

No

ISTHERE

ANY-CUMULATIVE

OR I NTE R ACTIVEFFECT

No

Yes

IS ITA

DOCUMENTEDERROR?

No

CAT II

POTENTIAL,INTERACTIVE

8( CUMULATIVEERRORS

YesCAT I

DOCUMENTEDERRORS

CAT IV

NON SIGNIFICANTHEDS

Figure 8

40


5.1.1. Cate or I - HEDs Associated with Documented Errors~ ~ ~

All HEDs which are known to have previously contributed to an

operating crew error as documented in an LER or other availablehistorical record or as established by interview (or questionnaire)responses of operating personnel or was judged by the NRC to be a

Category I HED in the preliminary review will be determined to be

signficant and assigned to Category I.

5.1.2 Cate or II — HEDs Associated with Potential or Interactive Errors

HEDs placed in Category II may come from two sources:

~ Those which degrade performance and increase the

potential for error

~ Those which have cumulative or interactive effects

Each of these two is discussed below:

~ It is the reponsibility of the review team to judgethe significance of HEDs. In order to reduce the

subjectivity of such a judgement, review team members

will answer a series of structured questions, designed

to indicate the effects of the HED on operating crew

performance. If it is judged that the HED degrades

performance and if the effects of the HED are judgedto be serious enough to cause or contribute toincreasing potential for operating crew error, the HED

will be determined to be significant and assigned toCategory II.

~ Any HED which does not degrade performance, which does

not increase the potential for operating crew errorand does not adversely impact safety consequences willbe further analyzed to determine if it has any

cumulative effects or any interactive effects with


other HEDs.'his determination will be based upon

knowledge derived from the review of systems,

subsystems, panels, components and functions/tasks, as

well as from human performance references. If the HED

is determined to have a cumulative or interactiveeffect it will be assigned to Category II.

5.1.3. Cate or III — HEDs Associated with Low Probabilit Errors ofSerious Conse uences

HEDs initially determined to have a low potential for error willbe further analyzed by the review team, in terms of the effect of an

error on plant operational safety. HEDs with a low probability forerror, but which could result in adverse conditions if such an errordid occur, will be determined to be significant and assigned toCategory III.

5.1.4. Cate or IV — Non-si nificant HEDs~ ~ ~

Any HED which has been analyzed and determined neither to increase

the potential for causing or contributing to an operating crew error,nor to have adverse safety consequences, nor to have any cumulative or

interactive effects will be assigned to Category IV.

5.2 HED Resolution

Recommendations for HED resolution will be proposed for HEDs. Corrective

actions will be developed using the resources contained in the DCRDR team and

other specialists (e.g. responsible engineering and design organization withinPP&L). The recommendations will take into account the impact of the

correction on operating effectiveness, system safety, acceptability of design,

consistency with control room characteristics and cost.

In terms of scheduling of implementation of HED resolution, Category Iresolutions will be implemented first when possible and practical. Lower

categories of HEDs will have their resolutions implemented in the sequence of

42


ategory II next, then Category III, then Category IV. This sequence will be

followed whenever possible.

43


APPENDIX A

WILLIAME. BARBERICH

EDUCATION

M.S., Physics,University of Scranton

B.S., Physics,Manhattan

EXPERIENCE

Penns lvania Power and Li htSupervisor - Nuclear Licensing

Mr. Barberich is currently responsible for all nuclearlicensing activities in PP&L's Nuclear Department. Otherpositions which he has held in the company include Engineerand Project Engineer in the Atomic Power Division, andNuclear Licensing Group Supervisor in the SusquehannaProject. He was the licensing supervisor for thepreliminary control room review for Susquehanna.

ANGELO F. BISESTI

EDUCATION

BSE Degree,San Francisco State University

EXPERIENCE

1980 — Present Bechtel CorporationAssistant Project Manager

Mr. Bisesti is responsible for overall management ofengineering, construction, procurement, cost and scheduleactivities for the control room, power generation controlcomplex and related relay and instrumentation panels.

Also, he is responsible for General Electric (GE) - NuclearEnergy Division and Pennsylvania Power and Light (PP&L)start-up group liason and coordination. Mr. Bisesti becamea Registered Professional Engineer in the State ofCalifornia.

As the lead resident engineer at GE-Nuclear Energy Divisionfor the Susquehanna Advance Control Room (ACR), Mr.Biesesti's duties included coordination of the design anddevelopment of the ACR between Bechtel, GE and PP&L. Healso was responsible for design and manufacturingintegration.

Earlier, as Engineering Supervisor, Mr. Bisesti wasresponsible for and directly supervised a group of 20 menduring the design of the Susquehanna Nuclear Steam ElectricStation.

He coordinated with PP&L the preparation of the electricalsections of a Preliminary Safety Analysis Report submittedto the AEC resulting in the award of a construction permitfo a 2 unit 1200 MW plant in Berwick, Pennsylvania.

He was also responsible for electrical system designequipment sizing, vendor selection, control philosophy andimplementation.

Mr. Bisesti coordinated with GE/NED and PP&L on thedevelopment of an Advanced Control Room (ACR) for a BWR-$p vintage plant.

He was completely responsible for coordination of planningscheduling and manpower forecasting efforts for anengineering budget of 500,000 manhours.

1968 — 1971 Stone & Webster En ineerin Cor rationEngineering Design Engineer

Mr. Bisesti supervised a group of 8 men during the designof Rocky Reach Hydro Electric Power Plant - Units 8-11addition. He was responsible for the preparation ofelectrical equipment specifications, the manufacturer'sadherence to same, and he prepared main and station serviceone line diagrams. He was responsible for elementarydiagrams, external control and relay board wiring diagrams,conceptual design of station as well as final conduit andtray layout. Mr. Bisesti visited the jobsite on a numberof occasions during construction to review installationswith regard to electrical equipment.

During 6/71 through 10/71, he worked at the jobsite asStart-up Electrical Engineer and supervised completecheckout of all controls and relay circuits. He assistedthe Hydro-Mechanical Engineer with all facets of start-upthrough putting the machine on the line and turnover to thecustomer as well.

1965 — 1968 Ebasco Services Incor ratedElectrical Designer

Given a block diagram, logic drawing or description ofoperation, he developd a complete schematic. He alsodesigned electrical control boards and control panels. Mr.Bisesti was responsible for checking design of other jobfacets and also worked on cable routing and physical designof the power plant.

1962 — 1965 Dorr-Oliver Incor ratedDesign Draftsman

EDUCATION

DONALD Co BURGY

1978 — Present Ph.D. Candidate, Applied-Experimental Psychology,Catholic University of America

1978 M.A., Applied-Experimental Psychology,Catholic University of America

1976 B.A., Psychology, Swarthmore College

EXPERIENCE

1979 — Present General Ph sics Cor rationManager, Human Factors Engineering

Human Factors Engineering and Man-Machine Systems Designand Evaluation. Areas of human factors expertise includesystems analysis, information processing, man-computerinteractions, performance evaluation, training systems, andspeech/non-speech communications. Applied research back-ground includes an emphasis in experimental design andmethods, multivariate statistical analysis, mini/microcomputer applications and software psychology.

Experience in nuclear power plant control room reviewsincludes on-site field evaluations at North Anna, Surry,Zion, LaSalle, Susquehanna (Advanced Control Room Design),Zimmer, Shoreham and Trojan Stations. Evaluations haveincluded the application of current NRC Human Factorsguidelines and existing military standards to control roomdesigns as well as field and laboratory experimentation tovalidate criteria used in design tradeoff analyses.

Experience in utility research and development efforts hasincluded two EPRI studies entitled (1) a Survey andAnalysis of Communication Problems in Nuclear Power Plantsand (2) an Operability Design Review of Prototype LargeBreeder Reactors. Methodology for collection and analysisof real-time field data in power plant control rooms wasdeveloped as part of the communications study.Functions/Task analyses and operational sequence diagramswere generated as part of the operability design reviewthat involved the evaluation of six breeder reactordesigns.

Additional task analytic experience has been largely forthe Navy SUBACS (Submarine Advanced Combat Systems)program. The human engineering aspects of the program

involved the development of task analysis formats andcollection methodology for the Acoustic Subsystem. Teamperformance improvement and training enhancement wereprimary goals of the systems development effort.

1978 — 1979 Consultant

Private consulting in statistical design and analysis,computer programming and applications, microcomputersystems and software psychology.

1976 — 1978 Catholic Universit , Human Performance LaboratorResearch Assistant

Applied and basic research experiments conducted onauditory signal classification of complex underwatersounds. Research sponsored by the Human FactorsEngineering branch of the Office of Naval Research.Additional research and related areas included auditory andvisual pattern recognition, performance measurement andevaluation, multidimensional scaling, and computer-basedsystems for acoustic and experimental data analysis.Computer experience involved programming experimentalevents and subsequent data analysis on Digital EquipmentCorporation PDP-8/e, PDP-ll/34 and DECSystem-10 Computers.

75 — 1976 Ea leville Hos ital & Rehabilitation CenterResearch Assistant and Interviewer

Interviewed study participants and assisted in dataprocessing for an Alcohol Abuse Research Grant andcoordinated all programming and clerical needs for asub-study on Life Stress Events. 'kills in programmingincluded JCL, SPSS, PL/1, and FORTRAN on IBM 370/168system.

PROFESSIONALORGANIZATIONS Acoustical Society of America

American Psychological AssociationHuman Factors SocietyNational Conference on the Use of On-Line Computers inPsychologyPsychometric SocietyPsychonomic SocietySoftware Psychology SocietySigma XI

AWARDS

1978 Grant-in-Aid of Research, National Sigma Xi

1978 Grant-in-Aid of Research, The Catholic University ofAmerica Chapter of Sigma XI

PUBLICATIONSAND PAPERS Burgy, D.C. "Hemispheric Asymmetries in the Perception of

Non-speech Sound Characteristics." Unpublished master'thesis, The Catholic University of America, May 1978.

Howard, J.H. Jr., and Burgy, D.C. "Structure PreservingTransformations in the Comparison of Complex Steady-StateSounds" (Technical Report ONR-78-6). Washington, D.C., TheCatholic University of America Human PerformanceLaboratory, December 1978.

Howard, J.H., Jr., and Burgy, D.C. "Selective andNon-selective Preparation Enhancement Effects of anAccessory Visual Stimulus on Auditory Reaction Time."Unpublished manuscript, The Catholic University of America,1977.

Howard, J.H., Jr., Burgy, D.C., and Ballas, J.A. "ADeglitching Circuit for the AA50 D/A Converter." BehaviorResearch Methods and Instrumentation, 1978, 10 (6),858-860.

Howard, J.H., Jr., Ballas, J.A., and Burgy, D.C. "FeatureExtraction and Decision Processes in the Classification ofAmplitude Modulated Noise Patterns" (Technical ReportONR-78-4). Washington, D.C., The Catholic University ofAmerican Human Performance Laboratory, July, 1978.

Topmiller, D. A., Burgy, D. C., Roth, D. R., Doyle, P. A.,and Espey, J. J. Surve and Anal sis of CommunicationsProblems in Nuclear Power Plants (EPRI NP 2035). ElectricPower Research Institute; Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, September,1981.

Burgy, D. C., Doyle, P. A., Barsam, H. F., and Liddle, R.J. A lied Human Factors in Power Plant Desi n and

~0 aration. Columbia, MO; General Physics Corporation,1980.

REPORTS "Preliminary Human Factors Engineering Recommendations forNear-Term Improvements of the Surry Nuclear Station ControlRoom" (Virginia Electric & Power Company, GP-R-705).Columbia, MD, General Physics Corporation, June, 1980.

"Preliminary Human Factors Engineering Recommendations forNear-Term Improvements of the Zion Power Station ControlRoom" (Commonwealth Edison Company, GP-R-708). Columbia,MDf General Physics Corporation, June, 1 980

"Human Factors Engineering Recommendations for Near-TermImprovements of the Zimmer Nuclear Power Station ControlRoom" (Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company), GP-R-13002).General Physics Corporation; Columbia, MD, December, 1980.

"Summary of the LaSalle County Nuclear Generating StationNoise Report" (Commonwealth Edison Company GP-R-13010).General Physics Corporation, Columbia, MD, August, 1980.

"Summary of the LaSalle County Nuclear Generation StationLighting Survey" (Commonwealth Edison GP-R-13011). GeneralPhysics Corporation, Columbia, MD, August, 1980.

"Human Factors Engineering Considerations for Implementinga 'Green Board't Zion Nuclear Generating Station"(Commonwealth Edison GP-R-31008) . Columbia, MD, August,1980.

"Program Plan: Task Analysis of Nuclear Power PlantControl Room Crews" (USNRC Office of Nuclear RegulatoryResearch). Columbia, MD: General Physics Corporation,March, 1982.

"Human Factors Engineering Meter Banding Study"(Commonwealth Edison Company GP-R-13016). General PhysicsCorporation; Columbia, MD, September, 1980.

DANIEL J. CARDINALE

EDUCATION

1962 M.S. Electrical Engineering,Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

1958 B.S., Electrical EngineeringPratt Institute

EXPERIENCE

1981 — Present Penns lvania Power and Li ht Com anGroup Supervisor — Nuclear

Mr. Cardinale has extensive experience in the design andengineering of cohtrols and instrumenation systems forcommerial nuclear power and military nuclear propulsionplants. This experience has included definition offunction, design, and arrangement for main control boards,local control panels, and operator-machine interfaceequipment. Mr. Cardinale has served as Chairman of WorkingGroup SC1.2 in the IEEE NPEC organization, and hasparticipated in ongoing work on IEEE Standard 566 ProposedStandard for the Design of Displays and Control Facilitiesfor Main Control Rooms of Nuclear Power GeneratingStations. Mr. Cardinale is also a registered ProfessionalEngineer in the State of Illinois.Knolls Atomic Power LaboratorEngineer

Mr. Cardinale held a variety of engineering and managementassignments with Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory inSchenectady, New York.

PROFESSIONALAFFILIATIONS

IEEEAmerican Nuclear Society

MICHAEL B. DETAMORE

I

EDUCATION

1972 B.S., Nuclear Engineering,University of Virginia

TRAINING

BWR Design Orientation

Fundamentals of BWR Operation

Pennsylvania State University Research Reactor TrainingProgram

BWR Technology

BWR Operator Training

Station Nuclear Engineering

SSES Operator Training Course

EXPERIENCE

1972 — Present Penns lvania Power & Li ht Com anPlant Engineering Supervisor

Mr. Detamore supervises the activities of the engineeringsupport staff consisting of fifteen to twenty engineers.The activities of the group includes engineering support,plant equipment and system performance evaluation,procedure preparation and review, failure analysis, testdevelopment and implementation, preparation of routine andspecial reports and continued support of plant operation.

As Senior Operations Engineer Mr. Detamore was assigneddirect responsibility for the development of GeneralOperating and Emergency Operating Procedures. He acted asthe primary contact with other plant sections on problemsaffecting the operation of the plant. He also supervisedthe Human Factors Engineering review of the AdvancedControl Room and acted as the designated alternate for the

'upervisor of Operations in his absence.

Earlier as Results Engineer, Mr. Detamore performedassigned activities relating to the preparation for initialplant startup and operation, including the following:

Supervised activities of system engineersPrepared job descriptions of plant staff positionsInitiated design modificationsCoordinated procedure development activitiesDrafted assigned sections of the FSARPerformed plant staff review of Startup AdministrativeProceduresEvaluated consultant bids for software assistanceDirected consultant personnel in the preparation ofprocedures

While an engineer at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Plant, Mr.Detamore functioned within the plant's technical .group. Heobserved overall plant operation and supportive activities.with specific assignments as follows:

Preparation of operating and surveillance test proceduresPerformance of surveillance testsParticipation in the Startup Test ProgramPreparation of design modification request programParticipation in the plant leak rate test programsPerformance of ."hands-on" trouble shooting

Initially as an engineer with PP&L he performed nuclearquality assurance activities covering design andprocurement, being most concerned with nuclear steam supplyequipment and nuclear fuel.

JOSEF KARL EDLINGER

EDUCATION

BSEE, Higher Institute of Technology, Saloyburg, Austria

EXPERIENCE

1974 — Present Bechtel Cor rationEngineering Supervisor

Presently, Mr. Edlinger is assigned as EngineeringSupervisor for Control Systems on the SusquehannaProject. His responsibilities include technical andmanagerial supervision of engineers in all areas of controland instrumentation.

Prior to this assignment, he was responsible as anEngineering Group Leader for instrument installation,field/construction support and interdisciplinarycoordination of the advanced control room.

Part of Mr. Edlinger's experience includes the conceptualdesign of the control room, implementing a complex plantcomputer system with CRT display capabilities, design ofanalog instrument loops, panel layouts, logic diagrams andelectrical schematics for various plant systems (BOP andNSSS).

The preparation of technical description for the FinalSafety Analysis Report, applying Industry and RegulatoryStandards was part of his responsibilities. During 1979,he was assigned to witness the final system factory test ofthe control room as a Resident Engiener. Mr. Edlinger isalso a registered Control Systems Engineer with the Stateof California.

1971 — 1974 Siemens AG.Project Engineer

For a duration of three years, prior to employment withBechtel Corporationg Mr. Edlinger was active in thedevelopment and design of digital supervisory controlsystems for power distribution (substation) control in WestGermany (Siemens AG.) .

RICHARD T. JENSEN

EDUCATION

B.S., Mechancial Engineering,Lafayette College

EXPERIENCE

1971 — Present Penns lvania Power and Li htNuclear. Maintenance Engineer

ICurrently Mr. Jensen is working in the Nuclear SupportMaintenance Section where he directs the Reliability,Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) program. He alsodirects general maintenance support in reviewing industryactivities. Mr. Jensen waas a key member of thePP6L/General Physics team which performed its preliminar'yControl Room Review (NUREG-1580) of Susquehanna. He iscurrently responsible for expanding PP&L's commitment to abroad human engineering program for the NuclearDepartment. He has held supervisory positions in plantoperation, plant maintenance, sta'rt-up testing and staffsupport for a plant performance improvement program.

ROBERT J. LIDDLE

EDUCATION

1980 M.S., Industrial Engineering and Operations Research,Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

1978 B.S., Psychology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute andState University

EXPERIENCE

1980 — Present General Ph sics Cor rationAssistant Manager, Human Factors Engineering

Mr. Liddle is a human factors engineer and is responsiblefor managing power plant control room design reviewmethodology, staffing, and training concerns. He providesin-house staff instruction in the technical andadministrative aspects of control room reviews. Inaddition, Mr. Liddle serves as project manager for severalhuman factors projects and has had experience withutility/NRC negotiations involving human factors issues.

He is currently the project manager for Pennsylvania Powerand Light Company's Susquehanna Detailed Control RoomDesign Review project and for Washington Public PowerSupply System's WNP-2 project. He was the lead humanfactors engineer for review of the Georgia Power Company'sVogtle control room and he was the project manager for thehuman factors review for Long Island Lighting Company'sShoreham Nuclear Power Station. Mr. Liddle has also beeninvolved in human reliability analysis with emphasis onnuclear power plant applications and the accompanying taskanalytic procedures. He has administered the GeneralPhysics developed Basic Mathematics and Science Test to aidutilities in evaluating candidates for operator training.Mr. Liddle has compiled and developed human engineeringstandards, specifically in the, areas of control coding,legend plate design, mimic and demarcation lines and colorcoding practices.

Areas of expertise include human/machine interface, humanfactors research methodology and display system design.

977 — 1978 Vir inia Pol technic Institute 6 State UniversitUndergraduate Research

In this research project, Mr. Liddle investigated the useof videotape recording apparatus in an assessment centerprocess. In this capacity, he was involved with schedulingand debriefing of participants, data collection and inter-pretation, and report writing.

Mr. Liddle investigated the use of biofeedback techniquesin the treatment of Raynaud's disease. In this capacity,he was involved with the procurement and scheduling ofexperimental subjects and the debriefing and counseling ofsubjects. He also participated in the development and pro-duction of a videotape explaining the purpose anddemonstrating the use of biofeedback devices.

PROFESSIONALORGANIZATIONS Human Factors Society

Environmental Design GroupVisual Performance Group

LICATIONSPAPERS Liddle, R. J. "The Effects of Alcohol on Performance of an

Industrial Welding Task." Unpublished Master's Thesis,Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,August 1980.

Burgy, R. C., Doyle, P. A., Barsam, H. F., and Liddle,R. J. "Applied Human Factors in Power Plant Design andOperation." Columbia, MD: General Physics Corporation,1980.

REPORTS "Preliminary Human Factors Engineering Recommendations forthe Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Advanced ControlRoom" (Pennsylvania. Power and Light Company GP-R-13023).General Physics Corporationi Columbia, MD, October, 1980.

"Report on Human Factors Evaluation of Alvin W. VogtleNuclear Power Plant Control Room" (Georgia Power CompanyGP-R-23003). General Physics Corporation; Columbia, MD,February 1981.

"Preliminary Human Factors Engineering Recommendations forthe Shoreham Nuclear Power Station" (Long Island LightingCompany GP-R-13055). General Physics Corporation;Columbia, MD, March 1981.

"Preliminary Human Factors Review of the WNP-2 PlantControl Room" (Washington Public Power Supply System GP-R-13114). General Physics Corporation; Columbia, MD, October1981.

"Annunciator System Design Review for the WNP-2 ControlRoom" (Washington Public Power Supply System GP-R-13116) .General Physics Corporation; Columbia, MD, October, 1981.

W F. SLUSSER

EDUCATION

1967 ElectronicsU.S. Navy Electronics

1968

1974

Enlisted Reactor 0 erator QualificationNavy Nuclear Power School

En ineerin Officer of the Watch Qualification ~

Navy Nuclear Power School

TRAINING

1981

1981

1981

1980

1980

1979

Integrated OPS Phase IIIMock NRC Exam/Susquehanna Cert. Exam

Susquehanna Operations Phase IISusquehanna Operations Phase ISusquehanna Operations Upgrade

SSES NSS Systems

1979

1978

1978

SSES BOP SystemsI

BWR Observation Training

G. E. Operator Certification Program

EXPERIENCE

1977 — Present Penns lvania Power and Li htShift Supervisor

Mr. Slusser is responsible for reviewing various plantprocedures, system descriptions and supervision of the day-to-day activities of an operating shift.

Earlier, as Shift Supervisor, he was responsible forassisting shift supervision in the supervision of shiftpersonnel, and directing all shift operating activitiesduring a nuclear power plant test program including theInitial Energization and Preoperational Testing phases. Heassisted shift supervision in the discharge ofresponsibilities regarding the operation of all power plantequipment during the test program, and for the

implementation and enforcement of applicable administrativecontrols such as those relating to work authorization,personnel safety, protective permit and tag and conduct ofoperations.

U.S. Na Trainin UnitStaff Instructor

During period of duty, he qualified major propulsion plantwatch stations including those of Reactor Technician,Reactor Operator, Engineering Watch Supervisor. He was anEngineering Officer of the Watch (EOOW); EOOW qualified4/74, and was responsible for personnel supervisor asLeading Petty Officer in Reactor Controls Division. Duringrefueling overhaul period as EOOW he participated in allphases of startup testing program. Collateralresponsibilities included Training Coordinator for enlistedand officer trainees.

U.S. Nav8FBM Submarine Duty

Mr. Slusser achieved progressive levels of responsibilityin Reactor Controls (RC) Division up to Senior First ClassPetty Officer. He gained 18 months of experience duringmajor overhaul/refueling and served as reactor operatorduring subsequent initial criticality, reactor physicstesting, nuclear instrumentation testing, and other post-refuel testing. Qualification included Engineering WatchSupervisor.

JOSEPH B. RIMSEY

EDUCATION

1962 — 1967 BSEE, Instrumentation and Computer Options, DrexelInstitute of Technology

TRAINING

1982

1980

1980

1980

Seismic Monitoring System Training

Numerous Human Factors Seminars and Structured Training

BWR Certification Training

BWR Fundamentals Training (Simulator Training)

1979

1977

IRD Mechanalysis Machine Balancing

Design of Waste Water Treatment Plants

1976

1975

1975

1967

General Electric BWR Technology Training

General Electric BWR Fundamentals Training

Reactor Technology and Operations Training, PennsylvaniaState University

'l

Computer Hardware Repair Training

EXPERIENCE

1980 - Present Penns lvania Power and Li htSenior Results Engineer/Instrumentation

Mr. Rimsky provides I&C technical support to other plantgroups and personnel consisting of technicaldirection/consultation in the area of instruments andcontrol. He assumes technical section system engineeringresponsibility for assigned plant systems and Interfaceswith other project groups on design, modification andtesting activities in the area of instruments and control.

As Instrument and Controls/Computer Supervisor Mr. Rimskydeveloped, administered, and supervised the Instrumentationand Controls/Computer Program for Susquehanna SES. Thisinvolved long range planning of the plants needs to meetNRC compliance and maintain safe, continuous and efficientoperation. Areas of involvement include outage planning<surveillance procedures and schedules, personal training,operations review, instrument maintenance and calibration

planning, computer updating and maintenance, recordspreparation and filing, instrumentation and control problemresolution and any other activities which involve theplant's instrumentation, controls and computer system. Themajor challenge of this task is the on-going reviewrequired to maintain the I&C C/Computer Program incompliance with the Technical Specifications, RegulatoryGuides, ANSI Standards and the Code of Federal Regulation.

As Instrument and Control Engineer Mr. Rimsky providedinput to put the I&C/Computer Supervisor for developing theI&C programs. He is responsible for Instrument and ControlProblem Analysis for the plant systems. Researching theseproblems and submi:tting recommendations for change ofprocedure, equipment, on purchases and spare parts werealso his responsibility. He prepares reports to be used bythe group for functions such as Justification for BudgetItems, NRC Reporting, Audit Reporting, Etc.

He was Field Engineer for Starting and Testing and wastherefore accountable for the checkout and initialoperation of power plant systems. Included within theduties were pre-operational testing and supervising theinitial operation of the systems to insure systemreliability and design integrity.

n

While Plant Betterment Engineer he represented the powerplants to management on all matters with an environmentalimpact. He would review, follow up and resolve any'out ofcompliance reports originating from the chemical lab orenvironmental engineering. He represented the powerproduction department at all boiler inspections.

1967 - 1973 Leeds & Northru Com anSystem Start-Up Engineer

Mr. Rimsky was responsible for the commissioning of Digitaland Analog Control Systems which automated large industrial

'teamsupplies and associated process. As lead engineer,the overall supervision and direction of the controlinstallation was the major area of responsibility. Thisarea included staffing, scheduling, training and workperformance.

1962 — 1967 Ta lor Instrument Com aniesCo-Op Student

Formal training program provided various duties indifferent departments. Assignments were in manufacturing,design, testing and systems engineering.

LICENSE: Registered Professional EngineerState of Pennsylvania


APPENDIX B

TASK (Event)

SUBTASK ELEMENT

CONTROL ROOM

INFORMATIONTIME SYSTEM SOURCE(S)

CONTROL ROOM

INFORMATION

REQUI REMENTSIMPROPERLY MET

CONTROI MANIPULATEDBY OPERATOR OR POTENTIALBRANCHING POINT INEVENT

Page of

SYSTEMRESPONSEFROM DISPLAY/ PERFORMANCE OPERATORANNUNCIATOR CRITERIA ERROR

'Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Detailed Control Room ...The overview is presented in a...

Documents

Transcript of 'Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Detailed Control Room ...The overview is presented in a...