ML20202A729

Crdr Implementation Plan

ML20202A729
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	02/28/1986
From:	CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20202A715	List: ML20202A711 ML20202A729
References
RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737 PROC-860228, NUDOCS 8604110047
Download: ML20202A729 (106)

Text

-

4

.e)

... p HADDAM NECK CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NUREG 0737, Supplement 1, requests all licensees of nuclear power plants and applicants for operating licenses to conduct control room design reviews.

This is Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company's plan for its Haddam Neck plant.

8604110047 860228 PDR ADOCK 05000213 PDR p

.S?a

((.h EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

The Control Room Design Review (CRDR) is a part of the efforts to upgrade the emergency response capabilities within the nuclear power industry.

The need to conduct a CRDR was stipulated by the NRC in Supplement 1 to NUREG 0737.

The purpose of the CRDR is to ensure that the control room will provide effective and safe con-trol facilities during emergency operations.

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

1.

Establishment of a qualified multidisciplinary review team.

2.

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

3.

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

4.

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

5.

Assessment of human engineering discrepancies (HEDs) to determine which HEDs are significant and should be corrected.

6.

Selection of design improvements and establishment of implementation schedules.

7.

Verification that selected design improvements will provide the necessary correction.

8.

Verification that improvements will not introduce new HEDs.

9.

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

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

The CRDR will be performed by a multi-disciplined review team of qualified individuals with a wide range of skills.

The key members of the team (referred to as the core team)' provide expertise in human factors engineering, operations, controls engineering and operators training.

Supplementing this core team are other individuals from various Northeast Utilities operations

~f!

and engineering departments and consultants.

77.-V The following block diagram provides an overview of the Haddam Neck CRDR process, starting with the preparation of this plan and concluding with a summary report.

To accomplish the CRDR we will perform a control room survey that compares the control room design with established human engineer-ing guidelines.

The operators of Haddam Neck will also be asked for their analysis (likes and dislikes) of the control room.

A walk-through of the emergency operating procedures (Task Analysis--walk-through of each operating scenario) will be per-formed to verify the presence and suitability of the instrumen-tation and controls in the control room.

Any discrepancies (e.g.,

improper procedures, training, hardware, missing displays, etc.) will be identified, assessed, and corrective actions will be taken as applicable.

The recommended corrections will be verified to assure that they eliminate or mitigate the discrepancies and do not introduce any other discrepancies.

The corrections will then be scheduled for implementation and a summary report will be prepared and sub-mitted to the NRC.

h

l,l!1l 0,n g

i s

GN I

P F

O I

F E

ATS 4

Y T R

S A R 4O KS MP I

E SY t

R I

AL S

l TA4 P

O I

E

=

4 N

=.

R S

G N

A O

I I

D TA K

C C

I O

F L

I B

D N

O 0

P 1

(,

T TE E

N C

Y NS C

AL W

E 'E D

S R

TU E

A.

NW F

S ND EE I

D t

Ii S

T I

T 'D EE I

P I I 1I N

SH N

R V

RV C

E R

EE EE E

EC E

R D

PR D

SF SO E

LS R

X I

W N

C E

N A

C G

1 I

A i

S a

E t

D E

M P

O O

O L

R EV L

E O

D R

T N

S O

D C

P S

I

/

L Y

C O

E P

R V

P 1

NR I

US

. 'd G

n. -

i N

d I

N I

I A

R T

i l

i, :

4 9l;i

i

CY - CRDR 4

G 8

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1

SECTION PAGE a

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1 2.0 OVERVIEW 3

2.1 Purpose 3

2.2 Scope 3

4 2.3 Objectives 4

2.4 Description of CRDR Activities 5

2.5 Definition of Terms 9

1 3.0 MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING (REVIEW TEAM) 13 3.1 Management 13

]

3.2 Review Team 13 3.3 Consultants 19 3.4 Review Team Orientation 19 4.0 INVESTIGATION PHASE 21 4.1 Operating Experience Review 21 4.2 Control Room Survey 26

])

4.3 Task Analysis 27

5.0 ASSESSMENT

PHASE 32 1

5.1 Objective 32 5.2 Evaluation Criteria 32 j

6.0 CORRECTION PHASE 35 6.1 Enhancements 36 6.2 Class Improvements 36 6.3 Individual Discrepancy Correction 36 6.4 Documentation and Disposition 37 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULING PHASE 39 8.0 REPORTING PHASE 40 9.0 DOCUMENTATION 41 9.1 General Documentation Requirements 41 9.2 Review Documentation 42 9.3 Document Control 42 9.4 References 43 9

-i-

J 1

b CY CRDR TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) f f

SECTION PAGE' 10.0 COORDINATION WITH OTHER ACTIVITIES 45 t

{

11.0

SUMMARY

47 4

j 12.0 APPENDICES 48 4

4 1

l

}

l i

i l

i l

1 4

4 l

1 l

i (ii)

C tr LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Haddam Neck Plant Arrangement FIGURE 2 General Arrangement of Control Room FIGURE 3 Control Panel Tabulation FIGURE 4 CRDR Project Flow Chart FIGURE 5 Project Organization FIGURE 6 CRDR Schedule i

l FIGURE 7 Task Data Form FIGURE 8 Triage Methodology 4

i 1

i I

f n

,i a

?A LIST OF APPENDICES 1

APPENDIX A Resumes APPENDIX B Cover Letter /Ouestionnaire Sample i

APPENDIX C Human Engineering Discrepancies APPENDIX D Task Analysis HED Principles i

APPENDIX E Emergency Operating Procedures 1

1 i

d,.

4 l

1 I.

I i

n l

0 (iv) i

• CY CRDR Page 1 404 HADDAM NECK eG CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW l.0 INTRODUCTION Haddam Neck on the Connecticut River in Haddam, Connecticut, is the site containing a nuclear power plant operated by Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO), a partially owned sub-sidiary of Northeast Utilities.

The subject for this review is the Haddam Neck Plant (Figure 1), which is a Westinghouse Electric Pressurized Light Water Reactor, (PWR).

The Haddam Neck Plant is a 1,825 megawatts thermal (approximately 600 megawatts electric) pressurized water reactor nuclear unit which commenced commercial operation in 1967.

The reactor, its four coolant loop system and turbine generator were supplied by Westinghouse Electric Company, and the engineer-constructor was

)

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation of Boston Massachusetts.

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

Ine need to conduct a CRDR was stipulated by the NRC in Supple-ment 1 to NUREG-0737.

While the CRDR is directed toward the control room, other areas of concern [e.g., Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS), Post Accident Monitoring (PAM), Emergency Operating Procedures (EOP's)) that are interrelated with the control room and auxiliaries are also addressed in this document.

O

O V

I Connecticut Yanime Atomic Power Plant

"'- 00 n

a

/.....

..f..y..h,_ g

._.T._._.

.I

'3)n w

l

[

,"-L d=.;

a

.ud I]

f)

--~~

.. ero-

.,g -

g

_,_f'

\\_m (G

.=-@-

m g

I ac M.---

_._ l g.

h M

T MESA.mT M.mee Tuse.=ese es.a.seee l

= _.

}

s

' CY CRDR Page 2

{

.{}

The Haddam Neck Plant main control board's design has evolved from Northeast Utilities extensive operational experience (fossil and nuclear).

Throughout its years of operation, efforts have continued to assess the plant control room with the objectives of 4

providing a control room environment conducive to safe and efficient operation.

Guidance for the CRDR and related activities has been provided by the NRC in the form of various NUREG's and regulatory guides.

A Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee (NUTAC) with staff support i

from the Institute of Nuclear Power Operation (INPO) was formed to develop a generic control room design review implementation plan from these guidelines.

The purpose was to assist the in-dividual utilities in their specific plan development for the implementation of the CRDR.

These documents have been generally used by CYAPCO, however, some of the specific guidelines have been modified for adaptation to this particular plant.

The

)

structure of this plan and the methodology for conducting this CRDR is similar to that developed and implemented for Millstone f

Units 2 & 3.

It also incorporates lessons learned from those CRDRs.

This implementation plan describes how CYAPCO will conduct a re-view of the Haddam Neck control room.

Although it is not necessary to receive NRC approval of this plan before commencing the review, we anticipate that any comments noted by the NRC Staff will be brought to CYAPCO's attention in a timely manner.

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

I plan.

i

CY CRDR Page 3 l

2 OVERVIEW 2.1 Purpose The purpose of CYAPCO's CRDR is to ensure that the Haddam Neck control room will provide effective and safe control facilities i

during emergency operation by:

review and evaluation of the control room work space, o

instrumentation and controls, and other equipment from a takes into account human engineering point of view that both system demands and operator capabilities; and schedule implementation identification, assessment, o

of control room design modifications that correct inadequate or unsuitable items.

O 2.2 Scone The CRDR will be performed utilizing the objectives and approach as provided in this plan, developed from the various guidelines and our Millstone Unit No's. 2& 3 CRDR efforts.

It is under-stood that the regulatory documents serve as guidance; not re-quirements or as inflexible criteria to be used by NRC reviewers.

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

1 i

i NUREG REPORT TITLE Functional Criteria for Emergency Response 0696 Facilities l

Guidelines for Control Room Design Review 0700 Guidelines for Preparation of Emergency 0899 l

Operating Procedures Evaluation Criteria for Detailed Control Room

()

0801 Design Review l

Requirements for Emergency Supplement 1:

Response Capability as Required by NRC Generic 0737 1

Letter 82-33, dated 12/17/82

J CY CRDR Page 4 4

, th REG.

"}h'

' GUIDES TITLE Standard Review Plan 18.0 Human Factors i

0800 Engineering / Standard-Review Plan Development Bypassed and Inoperable Status Indication _for

?

I 1.47 j

Nuclear Power Plant Safety Systems, Revision l,!

O, May 1973 Instrumentation for Light Water Cooled Nuclear 1.97 j

Power Plants to Assess Plant and Environs Conditions During and Following An Accident, Revision 2, December 1980 l

The equipment to be included in the review will be controls, dis-i plays, computer console and displays and other components on the i

l control boards, peripheral consoles, communications equipment, f

j ancillary devices, and procedures that the control room operators j

would be expected to interface with during emergency operations.

3 Also to be included in this review are Control Room modifications

]

and associated procedures currently being developed to fulfill 1

j l

the condition for exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR This will l

50, Appendix R for the Haddam Neck Plant Control Room.

include a human factors review demonstrating that operators can perform the necessary actions outside of the control room in a j

Due to the implementation schedule j

timely and effective manner.

for related modifications outside the control room, this portion I

of the CRDR will be documented in an addendum to the CRDR Summary

}

Report.

1 i

Figure Figure 2 is the general arrangement of the control room.

3 is a comprehensive tabulation of the panels to be enveloped by i

l a

the review process.

--4.

2.3 Obiectives i

To ensure that the CRDR fulfills its stated purpose,.several l

l l

objectives will be met during the review.

1 l

,1-_

h e

4 1

J N)

"' l"l *3l" l"!"YlDYl eng w, atLay *DeE5st PANfLP g

r-lu ND

1. f

-Iy l

/

T u s.- f1 neunt U

' 8"-

g ermen g

W O

e gy '"

/

sm W

NL entm

.)

f 1

5 N

~esper.M W

gnonseaAg

/\\

~

1 nry omavaTmu emaim 7mc -

MrT**Em

.[

N

'v TIGUPI 2

~-

a t

CY - CRDR FIGURE 3

.,q,,,

• )'

CONTROL PANEL TABULATION Auxiliary Control Boards Al - A10

- Control and Relay Panel A Main Control Board

- Control and Relay Panel B Main Control Board i

- Control and Relay Panel C Main Control Board a

Main Control Board

_ Control and Relay Panel D

- Control and Relay Panel E Main Control Board

- Control and Relay Panel F Main Control Board 1

- Control and Relay Panel G Main Control Board

- Control and Relay Panel H Main Control Board

- Control and Relay Panel J Main Control Board i

Primary Auxiliary Bldg.

- Control Panel r

Control Panel

- Liquid Waste Control i

Auxiliary Control Cabinet

- EG2A & EG2B Emergency Stop/ Trip / Bypass Control Panel

- Flux Mapping Communications Console Control Panel

- Chemistry Panel

- Steam Dump Control Panel I

Control Board I

Main Control Board

- Relay Panel F7 Main Control Board

- Relay Panel F8 Main Control Board

- Relay Panel G2

- Relay Panel G3 i

Main, Control Board Main Control Board

- Relay Panel G4

CY - CRDR FIGURE 3 1

,1.y a

Main Control Board

- Relay Panel H1 Main Control Board

- Relay Panel J Main Control Board

- Fire Protection Control Panel "CC" Main Control Board

- Combustible Gas Detection Panel "DD" i

l Main Control Board

- Post Accident Monitoring Panel "EE" Main Control Board

- Post Accident Monitoring Panel "FF" Main Control Board

- Safety System Lockout Panel "BB" j

Main Control Board

- Vibration Monitoring Panel J

Main Control Board

- Stack Gas Monitoring Panel Main Control Board

- Seismic Event Recorde Cabinet f

Main Control Board

- Relay Panel A19 i

Main Control Board

- Relay Panel A20 Main Control Board

- Relay Panel A21 Main Control Board

- Relay Panel A22 1

Main Control Board

- Relay Panel A23 i

Main Control Board

- Relay Panel B16 i

]

Main Control Board

- Relay Panel B17 Main Control Board

- Relay Panel B18 Main Control Board

- Relay Panel Cl3 i

Main Control Board

- Relay Panel Cl4 m

Main Control Board

- Relay Panel C15 Main Control Board

- Relay Panel D10 1

Main Control Board

- Relay Panel Dil Main Control Board

- Relay Panel P5 j

1 1

Main Control Board

- Relay Panel F6 l

CY CRDR Page 5 m

.o~.

,r.,

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

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

2.3.3.

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

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

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

2.3.6 To determine the extent and importance of any identified discrepancies.

2.3.7 To resolve any identified discrepancies.

2.3.8 To verify that the proposed resolutions do, in fact, eliminate or mitigate the discrepancies for which they are formulated and do not introduce any new HEDs.

2.3.9 To validate that the changes eliminate or mitigate the i

discrepancies formulated and that the control room I

operators can safely and effectively accomplish their functions during emergency operations.

.i 2.4 Description of CRDR Activities To achieve the stated objectives, several activities will be l

completed during the review.

A flow chart of these activities is O

CY CRDR Page 6 47?,

presented in Figure 4.

The CRDR has been divided into six phases--planning, investigation, assessment, correction, l

implementation scheduling, and reporting.

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

i 2.4.1 Investication The investigation phase will constitute the data gathering portion of the CRDR.

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

layout of the control boards.

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

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

i A survey of operating personnel will be conducted I

through a self administered questionnaire and follow-up interviews.

The data obtained will be reviewed for their potential classification as HED's.

i Task Analysis will be performed utilizing the EOP's which will identify control room operator tasks and i

information and control requirements during emergency operations.

The established information and control a

requirements and their associated characteristics will j

be compared against the available control room instru-i mentation and controls to determine any missing or 4

CY - CRDR

.i

,e,%

r

?'N FIGURE 4 CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW FLOW CHART PHASE 4 DESCRIPTION PLANNING DEVELOP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CONTROL ROOM EXPERIENCE TASK SURVEY REVIEW ANAL { SIS INVESTIGATION j

IDENTIFY HED'S

',~

f ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OF HED'S Ol i

4 1

J 1

i CORRECTION DEVELOP ENHANCEMENT AND MODIFICATIONS 1

I 1

IMPLEMENTATION PROVIDE IMPLEMENTATION

)

SCHEDULING SCHEDULING h

REPORTING PROVIDE

SUMMARY

REPORT t

l

• CY CRDR Page 7 ti?N, discrepant items.

Discrepancies will be documented as.

. yC' HEDs.

3 Development of a Criteria Matrix Form, (Sample Appendix E) has resulted from utilization of experience gained during performance of the Millstone Units 2 & 3 CRDR's.

4 This form identifies each major guideline of NUREG 0700 and documents the primary and secondary data collection methods utilized to determine compliance with these guidelines.

1 l

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

2.4.3 Correction Phase a

Recommended resolutions of discrepancies identified in the assessment phase will include methods by enhance-ment, modification, and/or other means (e.g., training 1

or changes to procedures).

The actions proposed to resolve HED's will be analyzed for their affect on operation.

These HED resolutions will additionally be verified by their implementation on a full scale mock-up for final review and approval by the review team, CYAPCO personnel, and the CRDR project management.

Discrepan-cies found to be non-significant will be documented for I

inclusion in the records of the review.

2.4.4 Implementation Scheduling Phase

()

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

. CY CRDR Page 8

Oj.

The schedule will take into account the training of operators imposed by pendieg changes.

Administrative follow-up will be instituted to ensure the successful completion and validation of all control room changes.

The actual implementation will occur subsequent to the reporting phase.

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

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

o Summarize the resolutions for discrepancies.

I f

o Schedule the implementation of these resolutions.

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

2.4.6 Verification Phase The verification activity is an ongoing process.

As the class and individual improvements are being selected, they will first be implemented, whenever practical, on the full-scale control room mock-up for review and approval by the core team.

This review and approval will be performed by inspection or by rewalking the operators task when applicable.

An integral part of the approval is to verify that each corrective action re-solved the HED in question and does not introduce a new HED.

Those of a nature unsuitable for implementation on (l

the mock-up (e.g., computer software, circuit modifi-cations, etc) will be reviewed / verified on the control boards as they are implemented.

CY CRDR Page 9 ifJEh For enhancement design that is warranted, the verifica-i

'D'~

tion will be' performed in the same manner as was done for the Millstone Units 2 & 3.

Namely, the enhancement will be conceived by the core team utilizing the expertise of the A/E discipline on scale drawings.

These drawings will then be reviewed by all members of i

the core team as well as the operators of the plant.

The comments received will then be incorporated on the drawings and the enhancements are then installed on the full scale mock-up for verification by the core team and the operators.

Once the verification is completed, the design becomes an integral part of the CRDR with the recommendations for implementation on the' actual control boards.

2.5 Definition of Terms l

! h 2.5.1 Control Room Design Review (CRDR)

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

which discusses the need to conduct a detailed control room design review to identify and correct design discrepancies.

Criteria for the performance of CRDR are provided by Supplement 1 to NUREG 0737.

]

i l

2.5.2 Control Room Survey

)

One of the activities that constitutes a CRDR.

The control room. survey is a static verification of the control room performed by comparing the control room instrumentation, controls and layout with selected human

^

engineering design guidelines.

1.

i

[

A

. CY CRDR Page 10

.O.

'R 2.5.3 Control Room Inventory A listing of all instrumentation and controls in the control room.

Its function is to provide the basis to determine whether the instruments and controls needed to support operations under emergency conditions are pre-sent in the control room.

This function will be accomplished as part of the task analysis effort and related verification and validation activities.

2.5.4 Emeroency Operatino Procedures (EOP's)

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

2.5.5 Emeroency Response Guidelines (ERGS)

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

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

2.5.7 Function Analysis

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

• CY CRDR Page 11 C:.

2.5.8 Human Enaineering (HE)

"The science of optimizing the performance of human beings, especially in industry.

Also, more namely, the science of design of equipment for efficient use by human beings."

2.5.9 Human Engineerina Discrepancy (HED)

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

2.5.10 Operator An individual who is licensed to manipulate a control or device; e.g.,

Reactor Operator (RO), Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) 2.5.11 Operational Experience Review One of the activities that constitutes a CRDR.

The operating experience review relies primarily upon operator experience to discover human engineering shortcomings and favorable aspects of the control room.

2.5.12 Review Team A group of individuals responsible for directing and _

enacting the CRDR of a specific control room.

2.5.13 Safety Parameter Disclay System (SPDS)

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

CY CRDR Page 12 m

f/

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

2.5.15 Task Analysis The task analysis is a tool or method used to delineate system functions and the specific actions that must take place to accomplish those functions.

In the CRDR con-text task analysis is used to review the individual con-trol room operator tasks and corresponding information and control requirements to allow successful emergency operation.

2.5.16 Validation The process of determining whether the control room operating staff can perform their functions effectively given control room instrumentation, procedures, and training.

In the CRDR context, validation implies a dynamic performance evaluation.

2.5.17 verification The process of determining whether instrumentation, controls, and other equipment are present and suitable to meet the specific requirements of the emergency tasks performed by the operators.

The control room survey is also a verification activity; a check of the control room equipment's suitability for use by the. operator.

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

I

CY CRDR Page 13 g

3.0 MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING (REVIEW TEAM) 3.1 Management CYAPCO is a partially owned subsidiary of Northeast Utilities (NU).

The CRDR will be conducted under the normal project policy and organization of the NU System which utilizes the services of the N'ortheast Utilities Service Company (NUSCO) for its engineer-ing and operation functions.

The scope of responsibilities and definition of major functions for the Nuclear Engineering and Operations Group is contained in Northeast Utilities " Nuclear Engineering and Operations Policies and Procedures Manua3".

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

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

The CRDR project manager was selected, who in turn commissioned members for the review team in accordance with NU policies and procedures.

This review team provides NU management the over-sight to ensure the integration of the project objectives and to fulfill the intent of the review.

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

They are responsible for planning, scheduling, and coordinating the entire integrated CRDR.

The team includes members of CYAPCO, NUSCO, and consultants.

Within this review team are the disci-plines that constitute the core team, the personnel dedicated to this project.

This core team includes the following expertise.

I

CY - CRDR

~

FIGURE 5 PROJECT ORGANIZATION Senior Vice President Nuclear Engineering & Operations J. F. OPEKA Director Generation Engineering & Design Department G. L. JOHNSON System Manager Generation Electrical Engineering A. R. ROBY CRDR Program Manager

}.

Manager I&C Engineering T. A. SHAFFER CRDR Project Engineer Specialist I&C Engineering R. K. MCCARTHY CORE REVIEW TEAM DISCIPLINE SUPPORT R. K. McCarthy, I&C Eng.

P. A. Blasioli, Licensing Engr.

D. C. Beffernan, Operations R..L. Beveridge, PRA/ Safety Analysis A. M. Stave, H. F. Spec.

R. E. McMullen, Mechanical Engr.

B. Ruth, Operator Trng. Supvr.

M. Parikh, Computer Serv.

• Consultants N. T. Thomas, Electrical Engr.

D. J. Parker, Reactor Engr.

l

CY CRDR Page 14 c:

o Shift Supervisor (having SRO license).

o Human Factors Specialist.

o Instrument Controls Engineer.

o Operator Training Supervisor Supplementing this core team as required are other disciplines including mechanical, electrical, instrumentation, and nuclear reactor engineering, computer operations, and licensing.

These disciplines are from various NU operations and engineering de-partments, and consultants.

During the course of the review, any additional specialists (e.g., lighting, acoustics, etc.) required for specific tasks will be made available as needed.

The review team has been provided with specific support as a part of the charge for enacting the CRDR, including the following.

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

o Access to required facilities.

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

o Freedom to document dissenting opinions.

o Full scale mock-up of the CY Control Room panels 3.2.1 CRDR Program Manager p

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

]

Specifics include the following.

CY CRDR Page 15 Ams Ni*f;)

"f -

o Interface with upper ~ management.

o Provide licensing liaison support o

Ensure the review is conducted in a professional, objective, and timely manner, consistent with this plan.

o Select the review team's specific members.

o Provide guidance as requested and required.

The CRDR Program Manager's qualifications include a baccalaureate degree in Electrical Engineering; the manager of the Instrumentation & Controls Engineering Unit of the Electrical Engineering Branch of the

(

Generation Engineering Department;- and ten years of experience in the engineering of nuclear units.

He is also the CRDR Program Manager for the Millstone Unit No's. 2 & 3 CRDR.

His resume is included in Appendix A.

7 3.2.2 CRDR Proiect Encineer The project engineer is the team's coordinator.- This individual provides the cohesive force.for the different departments and consultants involved in the review.

The CRDR project engineer's. specific responsibilities

-include the following.

o

-Provide team orientation.

4

?

/

o Preparation of.the implementation plan.

o Obtain training in selected areas, as j

required.

w

,---,v.

ner,,v,

--~-,.- -

,e,.

nw,-----.,.

-A,,,, +

,~n-,--r--+

m, n

CY CRDR Page 16

.7.7,s Direct and support day to day team activities.

o o

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

o Direct all phases of the review.

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

His resume is included in Appendix A.

3.2.3 Shift Supervisor (Having SRO License)

This member of the core team is from CYAPCO and his expertise provides the operational factor of the review.

~

His specific responsibilities include the following.

o Obtain orientation in selected areas.

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

o Assist in all phases of the CRDR.

o Serve as core team member of the review.

Provide the review team with the operational o

aspects and constraints in assessing the discrepancies found during the investigation f

phase of the review.

J7.:};

o Direct liaison with operations.

$1

. ra.-

Page 17 His resume is included in Appendix A.

m

3 3.2.4 Human Factors Specialist (HFS)

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

Specific responsibilities include the following.

o Obtain orientation in selected areas.

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

o Assist in all phases of the CRDR.

e o

Serve as core team members of the review.

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

His resume is included in Appendix A.

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

3.2.5 Instrument Controls Engineer (ICE)

The ICE will assist in the identification of plant

-' system design features and will serve as the review team discipline on the capabilities and limitations of controls and instruments.

He will also provide input to the team during the assessment phase of the

' CY CRDR Page 18 l}4 review, especially when the review team considers proposals for mitigations of HED's.

His specific responsibilities include the following.

o Obtain orientation in selected areas.

o Serve as core team member of the review.

o Provide his expertise in the assessment phase.

Note:

The ICE is also the project engineer, a normal procedure in the NU System for projects that fall within the responsibility scope of the individual departments.

See Section 3.2.2 for additional responsibilities and qualifications.

3.2.6 Operator Training Supervisor This member of the core team is from the Connecticut Yankee section of the Nuclear Training Department.

His expertise will provide the operator training factor of the review.

Specific responsibilities include the following:

o Obtain orientation in selected areas.

o Assist in the preparation of the implementation plan.

o Serve as core team member of the review.

o Provide the review team with the operator training aspects and constraints during the assessment and correction phase, on an as required basis.

' CY CRDR Page 19

. 9..*,.

o Direct liaison with training.

His resume is included in Appendix A.

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

3.3 Consultants In addition to the review team members from the NU System, addi-tional expertise will be provided by consultants who will assist in the review.

As members of the team they will provide input to j

all phases of the review through to the summary report.

It is CYAPCO's intention to utilize the same individuals as utilitzed for the MP-2&3 CRDRs.

3.4 Review Team Orientation Each member of the review team will bring his own in-depth know-ledge of specific topics to the team.

It is important, however, that the team be able to conduct the CRDR from a common basis of understanding.

The review team will undergo an orientation program designed to provide each team member with certain basic knowledge requirements.

The purpose of this orientation is to acquaint each member with the other disciplines' perspective represented on the team--not to make each-. team member an expert in all specialties.

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

l l

CY CRDR Page 20 3.4.1 Human Factors A one day orientation provided for the core review team will familiarize them with principles of human factors and their application to the control room design review.

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

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

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

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

• CY CRDR Page 21 4.0 INVESTIGATION PHASE To achieve the objectives outlined in Section 2.3 and to explain in detail the activities of the review (Section 2.4), the follow-ing will constitute the methodology in performing the Investiga-tion Phase of the CRDR.

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

This phase, the investigation and data gathering portion of the review, is divided into three parts:

the operating experience review, the control room survey, and the task analysis review.

4.1 Operatina Experience Review An operating experience review will provide information on potential problem areas in the control room by a survey of the Haddam Neck operating personnel for their operational experience.

This information will be utilized for the identification of possible HED's on this unit in the other phases of the review.

In addition, discrepancies identified by the Millstone Unit No's.

2& 3 CRDR will be reviewed, where appropriate, for potential applicability to Haddam Neck.

4.1.1 Review of Operational Events The NUSCO Nuclear Safety Engineering (NSE) Department reviews all Licensee Event Reports (LER's ) for Connecticut Yankee in Haddam, Connecticut, and Millstone Unit No. 1 and No. 2 in Waterford, Connecticut.

i 1

In addition, they review all Significant Operating

\\;y/

Experience Reports (SOER's) and Significant Event 1

~

b[

CY - CitDR

~

.i Figure 6 1

1906 1987 1980 PilASH Haft Al'It SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR ' MAY JUN JUL AUG DEC JAN l't ANN tNU t---

-I liXI'HitiMNCH Ill;V113W q

C ONTitOt2 ROOH SURVEY y

TASK ANALYSIS ASSisSSMHNr OF IlliD ' S Coltit!:CTIONS E

E I M PI.EM F:N eat t ON SCillsDULF imCunnN ra r TON /

l SullMAltY Rl3 f'Olt r I

1.t CI NS ING SUl'I' ORT I

i I

i V

c-rp e. gw, y, e wo e.%

CY CRDR Page 22 Reports (SER's) distributed by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) for applicability to the four nuclear plants involved in the NU system.

NSE is comprised of a number of personnel with a variety of different engineering disciplines including human 4

factors and operational backgrounds.

This provides for a comprehensive independent assessment of operational events.

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

to evaluate the potential significance relative to any of our four nuclear units.

If any data is found to be "significant" relative to some or all of the plants,

)

then an in-depth study is performed and a detailed report is issued for company distribution.

During the screening process, the need to interface with INPO, I

other utilities, and vendors becomes a common occur-Routinely, we interface with INPO information rence.

contact when reviewing SERs and SOERs.

As discussed above, NU has a comprehensive and indepen-dent assessment of operational events.

This mechanism has been in place for the past four years.

In light of this, it was concluded that a rereview of this material by the CRDR review team is unnecessary.

Instead, we will focus on the experience of the plant operators to bring to light potential problem areas over the life of Haddam Neck.

/

4.1.2 Operatino Personnel Survey r.:44 1

A most valuable source of data on operational problems j

wn are the operators of this plant.

The intent of this part of the survey is to make use of the experience

~.. _ _

CY CRDR Page 23

• 2s.

gained during the years of CY operation by asking 4

selected operation staff about the good and bad aspect of the control room.

(a)

Questionnaire Construction A self-administered questionnaire approach has been adopted.

By this method the operating personnel can be questioned while still maximizing the use of their time and that of the core team.

The survey will cover the following topics.

o Work Space Layout (Ergonomics ) and Environment o

Communications o

Annunciator Warning System o

Controls o

Visual Displays o

Labels and Location Aids o

Process Computers (including CRT's) o Panel Layout o

Control-Display Integration o

Other Areas for Operator Comment A sample of the initial questionnaire is included in Appendix B.

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

Suggestions for improvements in each topic area are solicited.

/

4

e CY CRDR j

Page 24

)

A cover letter will be included which (1) explains g*

the purpose; (2) describes the questionnaire and provides instruction; (3) conveys what will be done with the results; and (4) requests biograph-ical information.

(b)

Questionnaire Distribution The questionnaire will be given to selected opera-tions personnel of the CYAPCO Operations Department.

The elements discussed in the cover letter will be emphasized at the time of distribution.

(c)

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

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

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

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

(d)

Interviews Interviews may be conducted dependent upon the answers received by the questionnaire.

The purpose

CY CRDR Page 25 of any interviews will be to clarify any unclear information obtained by the' questionnaire and to ensure that all important areas have been ad-dressed.

The interviews will be performed by selected members of the core team.

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

acronyms, abbreviations, switch type utilization, color standards, etc.).

This data will be compiled and documented for utilization in the assessment phase and to a lesser extent during the control room survey.

During the assessment phase, this compilation will establish guidance for disposing of differences between the design criteria and the CRDR acceptance criteria to J

present a frame of reference for resolving human engi-neering discrepancies.

4.1.4 Control Room Inventory A control room inventory for Haddam Neck exists in the form of the plant Bill of Materials and detailed drawings.

From this inventory, the drawings, and numer-ous photographs of the actual control boards, a full scale mock-up was made.

As part of the Task Analysis, a complete data base for all emergency-utilized equipment will be developed.

Its development and utilization is discussed in the Task Analysis, Section 4.3.

1

• CY CRDR Page 26 7e

'f 4.2 Control Room Survey 4.2.1 Survey The control room survey, a human factors engineering (HFE) review, will be a systematic evaluation of the Haddam Neck control room using the criteria of NUREG 0700, Section 6, as referenced by NUREG 0737, Supplement 1, and other guidelines, as applicable to Haddam Neck.

The survey will determine what items in the control room layout, equipment, instrumentation, controls, environ-mental conditions, communications, and process computer are not in compliance with these criteria.

This will be accomplished by conducting a systematic comparison of existing control room design features with

)

the NUREG 0700, Section 6 human engineering guideline checklists.

The checklists will be reviewed and final-ized by the core team prior to administration to ensure plant specificity and to incorporate lessons learned from our Millstone Unit No's. 2 & 3 CRDR.

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

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

4.2.2 Survey Administration Human Factors personnel from the core team will adminis-ter the checklists at the control room and mock-up, as indicated in Paragraph 4.2.1, Survey.

The control room ggs will be used, where possible, for the functionally oriented type of criteria (e.g. switch barrier separa-tion, activation feedback, etc.)

The mock-up will be

CY CRDR Page 27 j{Q used for the static or non-dynamic criteria as in panel "2

arrangement, acronym, abbreviations, anthropometric, etc.

Upon completion of the survey, the core team will review the checklists' results for completeness prior to the commencement of the assessment phase.

Any core team member can document opinions concerning the potential classification of the control room features under con-cern, which may be in conflict with the opinion of the majority of the team.

This opinion will be forwarded to the CRDR project manager for inclusion in the review documentation.

l 4.3 Task Analysis 4.3.1 Purpose The objective of task analysis is to identify the in-strumentation and control requirements used by the control room staff for emergency operation and ensure that the required systems can be efficiently and re-liably operated under these conditions.

The presence or absence of equipment as well as its human engineering suitability will be determined and verified.

This is the verification for human engineering suitability of paragraph 2.5.17.

Non-compliance items will be recorded as EED'S on the HED form in the appendices.

4.3.2 Backcround Thorough function analyses of transients and accident conditions have been performed by the NSSS vendors in their development of emergency guidelines.

These

-' generic guidelines define the functions allocated to the control room operating staff to provide effective opera-j g

tion and control of the plant under a variety of emer-gency conditions.

As such, the ERG's form a sound

~~

i i

l

b CY CRDR Page 28 technical basis for the development of plant-specific EOP's, for training requirements for the operators, and for the task analysis phase of the CRDR.

CYAPCO is developing their EOP's from these ERG's.

The approved version of these procedures is scheduled to be completed for integration in the CRDR by September 1986.

Thus, the EOP's discussed above will be used for the purpose of this review.

4.3.3 Methodology The methodology for performing the task analysis will be very similar to that utilized by our Millstone Unit No's. 2& 3 CRDR, as documented in the Millstone Unit 3 CRDR Summary Report and addenda.

Plant Specific EOP's will be used by the CRDR Core Team to generate Task Data Forms (See Figure 7) which will document each step of the procedures in sequence.

The individual operator tasks for each step in the sequence will then be developed and recorded on these forms.

After the operator tasks are recorded, the corresponding information and control requirements will be added to the Task Data Forms.

These information and control requirements have been identified generically based on Revision 1 of the Westinghouse Owners Group, (WOG),

4 ERG's.

The associated information and control characteristics will be recorded on supplemental forms.

A consultant engineering organization shall be contracted to perform an Information Characteristics Review Program (ICRP).

This program shall address the development and justification of information and control characteristics based on both generic and plant specific operator information and control needs.

These characteristics will include specific information (as applicable) such as parameter type, dynamic range, i

CY CRDR Page 29 f})

setpoint, resolution / accuracy, speed of response, units,

^ '

and the need for action such as trending and alarming.

Control characteristics will include specific information (as applicable) such as type (discrete or continuous), information feedback associated with con-trol use, response requirements, mode of operation, resolution, and range.

These characteristics shall be developed as described below:

The ICRP shall identify the generic characteristics based on the WOG Low pressure reference plant design, to be followed by identification of plant-specific devia-tion characteristics.

Characteristics shall be justi-fied through development of, or reference to, appropri-ate generic or plant-specific Basis Documentation.

Upon completion of this process the operator tasks, information and controls requirements and associated characteristics shall have been identified and recorded, the next step will verify that those requirements are:

o present in the control room; and, o

the equipment is effectively designed to support correct task accomplishment (i.e., verification of human engineering suitability).

The presence and/or absence of the plant specific in-strumentation and controls will be confirmed by the core i

team by systematically comparing the recorded informa-tion and control requirements to the actual control room I

inventory as displayed on the mock-up.

Discrepancies will be identified as HEDs and recorded on the HED form, Appendix C.

2

.a,

CY CRDR Page 30 M

The human engineering suitability review will be performed by the members of the core team including the human factors specialist, the shift supervisor and the instrument and controls engineer.

Appropriate material extracted from the NUREG 0700, task analysis principles will be used as the review criteria (See Appendix D).

The data charts will be reviewed for the " Status vs.

Demand" criteria.

Demand items will be noted on the task data forms and reviewed during the walk / talk through for potential discrepancies in the feedback inf ormation'.

Concurrent with this review, a data base will be developed for all emergency-utilized equipment.

This data base will contain the instrument's identification number, its location, and all operator tasks utilized.

By sorting of this data base, an inventory of emergency instruments and equipment by location, and by tasks will be generated.

4.3.4 Validation of Control Room Functions The purpose of the validation process is to determine whether the operators can perform their functions effectively in a dynamic environment given control room instrumentation, procedures, and training.

This process will also determine whether the CRDR enhancements and corrections do indeed correct the. deficiencies found and that those enhancements and corrections do not introduce new deficiencies.

l

)

. CY CRDR Page 31 SU#

The validation process will be performed in two steps.

First, walk-throughs will be performed of several se-lected plant specific procedures on the updated control room mock-up containing the CRDR corrections and en-hancements.

A normal complement of the control room operating crew will be performing the walk-throughs for observation and critique by the core team.

Any problems in crew structure, Human Factors, or Procedures will be recorded, assessed and dispositioned.

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

These functions will be chosen from operational experience of the plant for their sensitive tasks and dynamic control aspects.

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

o CY CRDR Page 32

.fre.

5.0 ASSESSMENT

PHASE 5.1 Objective The objective of this phase of the CRDR is to evaluate for signi-ficance the HED's defined in the previous phases of the review, including consideration of the design standards and objectives.

i 5.2 Evaluation Criteria t

Human engineering discrepancies found during the control room survey, the operating experience review,.and the task analysis review, willbeevaluatedandprioritizebforresolutionaccord-ing to their potential to adversely affect emergency operation.

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

5.2.1 Priority 1 (Safety Sionificant) e HED's that are judged likely to adversely affect the management of emergency. conditions by the control room operators.

HED's placed in this category will likely be identified during task analysis because it is the EOP's that are being task analyzed. These HED's will be j

supported by the results of the survey and operating experience review.

1 l

5. 2. 2 Priority 2 ( Operational /Reliabilitv)

HED's $ hat are known to have caused problems or appear to cause problems during normal operation.

The HED's placed in this category will probably emerge during f

I operator interviews.

Some HED's may come from the control room survey.

4

c

. CY CRDR Page 33

/?R 5.2.3 Priority 3 (Minor Consequences) g 3..

HED's that can be determined to have minor affect on the reliability of operations.

5.2.4 Priority 4 (No Consequences)

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

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

The assessment process will be performed by the members of the core team in two stages in order to expedite this process; a

triage or preliminary assessment and a final assessment.

The triage methodology (Figure 8) will allow the team to resolve h

the HEDs with obvious solutions and reduce the number requiring more in-depth consideration for the final assessment.

Triage is a medical term which briefly is the separation of the severely wounded from the less severe.

As applicable to the CRDR, it provides an acceptable method by which the core team can efficiently accomplish the assessment of a large amount of HED's without being overwhelmed by the magnitude of the endeavor.

It should be noted that the triage methodology does assist in the ultimate resolution of the HED's when the solution is obvious or the HED is a duplicate of a previous one.

The key to the triage is the last question which if answered "yes" will properly identify the respective HED as requiring further review upon completion of the triage.

The triage is not the ultimate assessment but a screening for workability.

The final assessment will be conducted in the same manner as the triage assessment except that the final assessment will require considerably more investigation for understanding the impact on v

. CY CRDR Page 34 (7%

emergency as well as abnormal or normal operation.

The signifi-s+?

cance of operator performance is of the utmost importance during

'b this phase for both safety and/or operational reliability.

Northeast Utilities has developed and is using Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) methodologies for evaluating operator and equip-ment performance.

These methodologies may be used by the review team to assist them in evaluating the priority classification of HED's.

Should the core team not be able to reach a consensus on the disposition of a particular HED, the majority will rule.

Any core team member who feels strongly that a HED has been' assessed as too low (or high) will be able to put that opinion in writing to the CRDR program manager, and have the statement included in the record of the CRDR.

9 3

'CY CRDR Page 35 6.0 CORRECTION PHASE Correction is the process that resolves the discrepancies.

Ini-tially, the compiled list of HED's is reviewed for assignment to probable categories of solution.

Experience has shown, however, that many of these initial assignments are eventually changed, so HED's will be grouped in broad improvement categories.

These categories will be as follows.

o Enhancement The use of several techniques of surface demarcation, coloring, mimics, labeling, and swapping.

o Class Improvements A combination of minor changes to a particular type of J

control or indicator that will correct a whole class of problems.

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

Large numbers of BED's can be corrected through enhancements, in-cluding labeling and component swapping.

Many more that are class problems can be corrected by specific improvement to the class of components. Additional solution methods that may be used individually or in combination if necessary are as follows.

o Operator organization and communications.

o CRT display alternatives.

o Procedural and administrative solutions.

l 1

CY CRDR Page 36 o

Special training requirements.

47%

. i-

.~

o Component replacement and panel alteration.

6.1 Enhancements Enhancements include a number of techniques that involve surface improvements, such as demarcation lines, shading, and improved labeling.

Also included in the enhancement category is the pos-sibility of component swapping.

This involves changing the loca-tion of a control or indicator with a like unit within the same grouping.

Swapping involves simple exchanges of locations with-out the need for panel modifications.

In some cases, this tech-nique can greatly improve the effectiveness of surface enhance-ments, and can resolve many more HED's than would otherwise be possible with enhancements alone.

6.2 Class Improvements The objective of this method is to consolidate classes of dis-crepancies that pertain to one type of control or indication, and design improvements for that class.

The enhancements discussed previously pertain to the panels and panel labeling, but do not include changes to the individual control or indicator.

It is usually possible to make direct changes to a control or indicator, thereby correcting a whole group of problems.

Labeling on an indicator, scale improvements, and deletions of extraneous markings are examples.

Discrepancies

^

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

6.3 Individual Discrepancy Correction The objective of this method is to correct HEDs one by one using the most performance / cost effective method or. combination of methods.

All resolutions that do not meet accepted, good human engineering practice will then be further analyzed to determine acceptable improvements.

' CY CRDR Page 37 g

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

A HED Status Summary will be made and maintainen.

It will be updated as changes occur and will be printed for distribution periodically and on request.

The summary will indicate the current assignment, the status, and action required.

This will be an important quality control tool for completion of work.

Criteria for the satisfactory completion of HED's is provided in Section 2.2 (Scope).

These criteria have been consclidated and assigned a resolution code and as HED's are resolved, will be assigned to one of these codes.

Code Description A

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

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

C Meets HFE guidelines through a combination of solutions.

' D Does not meet HFE guidelines.

E Solutions do not meet all guidelines, but are judged to be acceptable for safe operation for the reason stated.

CY CRDR Page 38 4..h4 6.4.2 Disposition The documentation previously described will be compiled in a class format to be included in the summary report.

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

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

G

CY CRDR Page 39 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULING PHASE The actions required to resolve significant HED's will vary, as will the time required to complete proposed changes.

i It also must be recognized that the preparation of a schedule 1

without knowledge of the changes to be made is little more than a guess.

CYAPCO will proceed with the implementation as rapidly as practi-cal upon completion of the correction phase.

A number of factors will be considered in this implementation including but not limited to the following.

Severity of the discrepancy.

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

discrepancy.

1 o

Impact on plant operation.

Impact on operator training / retraining.

o o

Procurement schedules, Correction degree of difficulty.

o Implementation schedules will be included with the summary report.

/

CY CRDR Page 40

. i-8.0 REPORTING PHASE Upon completion of the CRDR, a summary report of the results will be submitted to the NRC for revie,r.

This report will describe the results of the CRDR.

It will summarize the review process by phases, the identified human engineering discrepancies, and the recommended corrective actions with implementation schedules for each action.

All phases of the CRDR, and its complete documenta-tion, will be available for NRC evaluation and review.

The format of the Summary Report will closely follow the imple-mentation plan for ease of cross referencing and will be similar to our Millstone Unit No. 3 Summary Report.

Changes that have been categorized as Priority 1, (Safety Signi-ficant), but do not provide a full and complete correction of an identified HED, or decisions to allow a discrepancy to remain, will be justified and information pertinent to such decisions will be provided.

Priority 1 HEDs which were uncorrected, if any, will be submitted in the Summary Report in accordance with NUREG 0737, Supplement 1.

Identified design improvements, safety related or not, will be described.

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

CY CRDR Page 41 r&~

M-

.e

9.0 DOCUMENTATION Adequate documentation and document control creates a traceable and systematic translation of information from one phase of the CRDR to the next.

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

o Provide a support base to manage and execute the various steps of the control room review.

Provide a design data base from which future control o

room modifications may be made.

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

This section describes the documentation system and management procedures that will be used to support the control room review.

9.1 General Documentation Requirements Many documents will be referenced and produced during the CRDR project.

They will meet the following requirements.

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

N 9.1.2 Provide a record of documents produced by the review team as project output.

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

7 9.1.4 Allow an audit path to be generated through the project

~

documentation.

CY CRDR Page 42 S.

TY 9.1.5 Retain project files in a manner that allows future access to help determine the effects of control room changes proposed in the future.

9.2 Review Documentation Throughout the review process, documents will be processed to record data, analyses, and findings.

Whenever practical and appropriate, standard forms developed in this plan will be used.

Any or all of these forms may be revised based on experience gained during the review.

The documentation generated by the review is required to do the following.

9.2.1 Document the criteria used for each review activity.

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

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

9.3 Document Control The control of documents, their final disposition as well as any reviews, will fall under the normal procedures of the NU System by the Nuclear Records Department and in accordance with the

" Nuclear Engineering and Operations Policies and Procedures f

Manual".

These procedures will be further reviewed for incorpor-i ation of the principles applied in this review to any future

[

e modifications to the control room.

f i:

?

'o 4.

r'

• )

u.

i t

Y e-

--w*-w

-+

O e

. CY CRDR Page 43 E

'f' 9.4 References The following documents are resources to be used during the re-view project.

As the review progresses, it is anticipated that additional material and references will be identified and ob-tained.

9.4.1 Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Facility Description and Safety Analysis Report (FDSA).

9.4.2 Westinghouse Electric Owners Group (WEOG) Emergency Response Guidelines (ERGS), Rev.

1.

9.4.3 Connecticut Yankee Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs).

9.4.4 WOG Generic Information and Control Requirements.

)

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

9.4.7 Control Room Photographs.

i 9.4.8 Human Factors Design Information:

i i

o Van Cott & Kinkade h

j o

McCormick I.

o MIL-STD-1472C 9.4.9 System Descriptions.

s t

. CY CRDR Page 44 d:A

$/

9.4.10 Piping and Instrument Diagrams (P&ID's).

9.4.11 Operating Training Manuals.

9.4.12 Instrument Tabulations.

9.4.13 Annunciator and Label Engraving Lists.

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

9.4.15 CRDR NUTAC INPO Documents.

9.4.16 NU Policy and Procedures Manualsa 9.4.17 Other ERC Plans--SPDS, EOP, AMI (1.97), ERF.

9.4.18 Millstone Unit No's. 2 &

3 CRDR Human Engineering Discrepancies and Summary Report (s).

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

9.4.20 Connecticut Yankee Control Room panel mock-up i

i i

6 xi i

~::)

v b.

b

(*

E

1 CY CRDR Page 45

,'y w

10.0 COORDINATION WITH OTHER ACTIVITIES Implementation of Supplement 1 of NUREG 0737 necessitates the integration of certain post-TMI activities.

Specifically, these activities are:

Control Room Design Review (CRDR).

o Emergency Operating Procedures (EOP's).

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

o Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS).

o o

Emergency Response Facilities.

A part of the integration will occur during the walk-through or verification stage of the task analysis as recommended in Supple-ment 1.

As the core team walks through the specific operator tasks, they will record any and each shortcoming or discrepancy f

(e.g., special training required, control location, lack of computer display, etc.) as a HED.

It should be noted that the CRDR team includes personnel involved with certain aspects of the Supplement 1 to NUREG 0737 activities including the Human Factors specialist involved with the development of the SPDS.

During the assessment and correction phases of the CRDR, disciplines involved with other facets of Supplement I will supplement the core team in the resolution of these HED's (e.g., training may be modified, the control may be operated by a second operator, a display may be added to the SPDS, etc.).

i

,t Ii i

+

c t

, CY CRDR Page 46 ATf;)

Any hardware modifications or enhancement resolutions will be verified by an additional walk-through by the core team.

Upon satisfactorily completing this phase, the task analysis documen-tation will assist the Operations Department in modifying, if j

necessary, the plant-specific EOP's.

Also as part of the CRDR, the control room instruments that are intended for use under accident conditions will be reviewed and I

where necessary, appropriately highlighted, to enable the oper-l ators to easily identify them, as requested by the Regulatory i

Guide 1.97.

In summary, the resolution of HED's (integrating all inputs from t

Supplement 1, to NUREG 0737 activities) could include:

Plant Process Computer /SPDS display additions.

o 1

o Training to enhance operators' cognitive analysis.

i o

Requirements of additional or modified staffing.

l Utilization of Regulatory Guide 1.97 instrumentation.

o Modification of specific EOP's.

o Finally, the dynamic validation step will be performed as dis-cussed in Section 4.3.4 of this plan.

This validation will be a true validation of the selected group of time-sensitive proce-dural steps rather than one to identify additional discrepancies, 3

i l

9 I

1 1

j

{

CY CRDR 1

Page 47

}

1. h

%~/'

11.0

SUMMARY

w i

4 This implementation plan was developed to describe the process j

whereby CYAPCO will conduct the human factors review of the Haddam Neck control room.

A sincere effort has been made by CYAPCO to ensure that all major aspects of an effective CRDR have been considered during the development of this plan.

l 2

I l

1 i

h i

i i

]

r i

il

i

.I d

e f

,e h

4 t,

i i

I i

d

d i)

CY TA!!K f)ATA FOftM (TI)P)

• EOP NO.

ItRV.

TITI.R page _.._ of STEP NO.

HTHP TITfR STEP CUE TAS K ItEQU t tt MMENT.

PI, ANT _E.Q. _Ull' MENT USED No.

VEttB

_ TASK DEVICE P T,A N T I _D..

_I..O._C_._

S._T.A.T..E lil:1) NO i

l t

I i

t i

i e'

FIGUltF, 7

i l

CONNECTICUT YANKEE I

CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW 3

ASSESSMENT TRIAGE METHODOLOGY Condidering the safety and operational ignificance of ehch HED, every HED will be reviewe as follows:

I 1.

Is the HED truly a deficiency?

2.

Is the HED in the process of resolution with an existing design cha e?

3.

s the HED a logical candi te for manage-m nt resolution?

(e.g., t aining/proce-d es/PC display) 4.

Is he HED part of a lar er, duplicate or 1

generic HED?

5.

Are rf ace enhancement-the logical resol tion?

I 6.

Is the HED resolution obvious and minor for j

change o both the control room and the 4

simulat

?

\\

/

'i.

Does the HED require further stu and assessment?

\\

/

/

f e

f t

e

@Yg) a

~

FIGURE 8 l

CY - CRDR Page 48 12.0 APPENDICES

CY - CRDR APPENDIX A-1 RESUME OF:.

Thomas A. Shaffer i

EXPERIENCE:

1977 - Present Northeast Utilities Service Company, Berlin, Connecticut, Generation Electrical Engineer-ing 1985 - Present Manager, Instruments and Controls Unit of Generation Electrical Engineering i

Responsible for Controlling CCC Activities, Establishing

& Monitoring Budgets Manage Activities associated with Controlling Corporate Resources within the Instruments and Controls Unit., discipline for all nuclear, fossil and hydro production facilities, establish corporate positions relative to regulatory issues and serve as Project Manager for all CRD8's.

1980 - 1985 Supervisor, Controls Engi-neering Unit of Generation Electrical

~}

Engineering Plan, schedule, coordinate, and supervise engineering activities involving control systems for NU's generating plants (nuclear, i

fossil, and hydro) and LNG facilities.

Responsible for coordinating activities necessary to install new and modified sys-tems and equipment to improve safety, per-formance, and availability of generating plants.

Responsible for supervision of all project / discipline engineering functions supporting projects and operations activities.

1977 - 1980 Engineer, Generation Electri-cal Engineering Group.,

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

4 6

CY - CRDR APPENDIX A-2 IS)

T. A. Shaffer (continued)

Responsible for review of related items of the Three Mile Island Accident such as Post Accident Monitoring Instrumentation, Human Factors Engineering for Control Board Designs, and Control System Logic relative to Man / Machine Interface.

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

1974 - 1977 Bechtel Power Corporation, Gaithersburg Maryland, Gaithersburg Power Division Engineer, Control System Group Responsible for control systems specifica-tions, engineered safety actuation system, flow elements, main and auxiliary control l

boards, seismic monitoring instrumentation, and access security systems.

Preparation of

~}

instrument installation details, logic dia-i grams, loop diagrams, control board designs, instrument location diagrams, seismic and separation criteria documents.

Vendor and field liaison, liaison with client-repre-sentative.

Projects:

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

Instrumentation / Electrical Engineer (1976),

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

Responsible for installation of instruments 1

and their associated electrical circuits, startup testing.

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

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Automatic Machine Division.

[

i Directly involved in all phases of machine design and product development.

Duties included detailing machine components, electrical design, and troubleshooting.

EDUCATION:

1972 Associate Degree in Electrical and Electronic Design Technology 1974 Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering Technoloov Pennsv1vania C*=*a "ad"---'*"

i

CY - CRDR APPENDIX A-3 RESUME OF:

Robert Karl McCarthy EXPERIENCE:

1978 - Present Northeast Utilities Service Company, Berlin, Connecticut, Generation Electrical Engineer-ing Generation Engineering Specialist Assignment of Project Ergineering respon-sibilities for Nuclear, Fossil and Hydro plant, backfit and betterment projects.

Responsible for:

Development of log.'c, loop, schematic diagrams and instrumentation installation details.

Preparation of plant design change requests and associated job packages required for implementation.

Provisions of on site coverage / super-vision of safety and non-safety related equipment installation.

s Provision of technical support and information for various NRC submittals.

Assignment to Connecticut Yankee I&C shop for outage assistance.

Assignment to Millstone III Project group to provide I&C assistance and direct the implementation of CRDR deficiency resolutions at Millstone Unit III.

The specification, procurement and installation of a solid state control house for the Middletown Station gas turbine.

Performance of independent design verifications for discipline-related category IE plant design changes.

8 1

Performance of human engineering reviews of changes to CY, MP I, MP II main

[

control boards.

1

\\

CY - CRDR APPENDIX A-4 r.5, Robert Karl McCarthy (continued)

N Assigned as:

I&C representative for MP III Engineering Assurance Audit Team.

Core Team Member for NUREG-0700 Control Room Design Review of MP I, MP II and CY.

Major Project Engineering Assignments include:

CY Auxiliary Feedwater Flow Indication.

Replacement of Middletown Jet Control Room.

Millstone I Replacement of RX Building Limit Switches.

Installation of Env. Qual. Limit Switches

& Solenoid Valves on Millstone II Containment Isolation Valves.

l CY Automatic Initiation of Auxiliary Feedwater.

MP II Automatic Initiation of Auxiliary Feedwater (AC Independence).

1/78 - 7/78 Nuclear Manpower Corporation Millstone I Engineering Technician Assisted plant engineering personnel in preparation of outage-related Plant Design Change Requests job packages, product acceptance test procedures, installation procedures, drawing revisions and plant / craft liaison.

Assigned as shift coverage supervisor for fuel pool cleanup and cask handling and assisted Unit I IsC on off gas system H2 monitoring.

,?

8/77 - 1/78 Nuclear Manpower Corp. Boston Edison Co.

j i

Pilgrim Unit I Station

[

Dosimetry Specialist i

4 i

Provided on-site readout of thermo-lumines-0 cent radiation detectors; assisted in daily l

3,q) update of personnel exposure records, J' ;

completion of NRC form 4's, personnel termination exposure history, and total radiation assessment program.

Yankee Atomic TRAP II System

CY - CRDR APPENDIX A-5 l

Robert Karl McCarthy (continued) s.,;.,

a 1971 - 1977

.I MILITARY SCHOOLS United States Navy 1

i Basic electricity and electronics school Electricians mate "A" school Nuclear Power School Nuclear Prototype - SIC Sound and Vibration Analysis School-Magnetic Amplifier School t

j MILITARY EXP.

Participated in two ship's power plant overhaul and reactor refueling at Electric Boat Company.

d Oualified as shutdown reactor plant operator, electrical plant operator -and i

propulsion plant operator.

Completed 85% of-engineering watch supervisor qualification.

Performed routine and corrective maintenance i

i and testing on the reactor, electrical, propulsion and auxiliary plant control l ]

systems.

j s

l 4

l i

L I

It i

i c

l t

t-o 4

l

l i

CY CRDR APPENDIX A-6 jgp)

RESUML OF:

Douglas C. Heffernan EXPERIENCE:

1983 - Present Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (Haddam Neck Plant)

Shift Supervisor (SRO)

Plans, schedules, coordinates and supervises the operation of a nuclear steam electric plant during assigned rotating shifts in compliance with applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, and licenses.

Assumes initial site responsibility in time of emergency.

1977 - 1983 Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (Haddam Neck Plant)

Supervising Control Operator (SRO)

Operated and supervised the operation of controls, equipment and piping systems in the control room.

f 1974 - 1977 Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (Haddam Neck Plant)

Control Operator (RO)

Performed under direct supervision or control of Supervisory Control Operator, complex work in connection with the operation of the control room.

1970 - 1974 Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (Haddam Neck Plant)

Auxiliary Operator Performed work in connection with and responsible for the operation of various plant auxiliary equipment and assisted in 3

handling nuclear materials and shipments.

[.

$h

(

i CY - CRDR APPENDIX-7

-typ)

~

RESUME OF:

Allan M. Stave EXPERIENCE:

1983 - Present Northeast Utilities Service Company, Berlin, Connecticut 1965 - 1983 United Technology Corporation (Norden Systems and Sikorsky Aircraft) 1960 - 1965 General Electric Missile and Space Vehicle Department 1958 - 1960 Wright Air Development Center More than twenty-five years of human factors applied and research experience while em-played at listed organizations.

Work during this time was in the following areas.

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

Flight Simulator Design Design of Training Programs Military Aircraft Helicopter Crew Compartments Helicopter Maintainability Military Command and Control Systems Man / Computer Interfaces s

Effects of Noise and Vibration on Pilot Performance

1 CY - CRDR APPENDIX A-8 A. M. Stave (Continued)

('j.,

Design and Execution of Experimental Studies Design and Execution of Survey and Interview Type Studies Work Space Layout Control Panel Layout complex Display Design and Evaluation Quantification of Human Performance Task Analysis 1

Design and Execution of Training Programs EDUCATION:

1954 Bachelor of Arts Degree, Psychology University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1955 Master of Arts Degree, Psychology Boston University Boston, Massachusetts 1

1964 Doctor of Philosophy Candidate Industrial Psychology Temple University i

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Graduate work included courses in the following areast Statistics, Human Factoring Engineering, Experimental Design, Sensor / Perceptual Processes, Industrial Psychology, Test Construction / Design, Survey Techniques, Interviewing i

f I) i

CY CRDR Appendix A-9

-s RESUME OF:

BRADLEY W. RUTH EXPERIENCE DETAILS Northeast Utilities (NUSCO) 2/83 to Present Supervisor, Operator Training - CY 12/85 - Present Plan, coordinate & supervise activities associated with the development and implementation of Connecticut Yankee nuclear licensed and non-licensed operator training services, including maintenance of the Connecticut Yankee simulator's fidelity.

MP 2 Simulator Program Supervisor 11/83 - 12/85 Supervise the activities associated with the development and implementation of the MP 2 reference plant simulator operator training programs.

Participated in the complete factory and site acceptance test of the MP 2 reference plant simulator.

Supervisor, Nuclear Training 2/83 - 11/83 Supervise the activities associated with.the development and implementation of various nuclear training programs for NU employees at the corporate headquarters,'

including; unit information courses and Thames valley Associates Degree program.

Energy Consultants, Inc.

6/81 - 2/83 Manager, Mid-Atlantic Region 6/81 - 2/83 Conduct all aspects of licensed operator training at the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Plant and other Westinghouse

~~-

designed PWR plants in the region.

Responsible for establishing the Mid-Atlantic Regional office for the corporation, including' employment,....

qualification and management of regional personnel.

Provide review for technical content and educational value of training materials and aids developed to support Licensed Operator and Shift Technical Advisor training programs.

h Page 1 of 3

[

~

CY CRDR Appendix A-10 5%

4 Provide consultation on staffing needs and requirements to support nuclear power training facilities.

Provide consultation in accreditation of training programs and evaluation for college credit.

Westinghouse Electric Corporation 10/75 - 6/81 Manager, Support Training 8/80 - 6/81 Responsible for managing the efforts of a group of 16 Training Engineers.

Responsible for the instruction and development of I & C training programs.

Responsible for development of the Westinghouse Mobile Instrumentation and Control Training Unit.

Responsible for development of materials to support nuclear operator training programs and simulator raining centers.

)

Manager, Programs Training 9/79 - 8/80 Responsible for managing the efforts of a group of 12

, Training Engineers.

Responsible for commercial nuclear training programs conducted by Westinghouse, Pittsburgh.

Developed and conducted portions of specialty programs such as the Station Nuclear Engineer's Course, Thermo-hydraulics, Transient and Accident Analysis, and Mitigating Core Damage.

Supervised and administered audits associated with the Westinghouse " Cold License" certification program.

Conducted portions of licensed operator initial and re-qualification training programs.

Training Engineer 3/78 - 9/79 I

Conducted licensed and non-licensed training on all aspects of nuclear plant operation, including simulator

" cold license" certification examinations.

b Page 2 of 3

CY CRDR Appendix A-ll k

Developed and conducted training programs to support steam generator maintenance (E/C Level I and II, Explosive Tube Plugging, Manual Tube Welding, etc. ).

Field Service Engineer 10/75 - 3/78 Coordinated and supervised field crews conducting steam generator maintenance activities (In-service Inspection, Sludge Lancing, Tube Plugging, Tube Expansion, Special Projects).

U. S. Navy, USS Nathaniel Greene 11/72 - 10/75 (SSBN 636 Blue)

Lt(jg) - Served as Electrical Officer and Main Propulsion Assistant during five one month refit periods and subsequent deterrent patrols.

Awarded Commander Submarine Group II Commendation for performance as MPA and Engineering Officer of the Watch.

Qualified Engineering Officer of the Water, Engineering Duty Of ficer, and Officer of the Deck underway and in port.

Allegheny County Community College 1980 - 1981 Associate Professor (part time) - taught general physics courses with calculus.

Was accepted to teach by both the Mathematics and Physics Departments.

EDUCATION DETAILS Bachelor of Arts Degree - Physics Millersville State College 9/66 - 5/70 Millersville, Pennsylvania U. S. Naval Officer's Nuclear Power School 11/71 - 5/72 U. S. Naval Power Training Unit (DlG) 5/72 Certificate - Home Entertainment Elect-1/74 - 5/77 ronics Systems II DeVry Institute of Technology (Correspondence)

OTHER I

Member - American Nuclear Society i

Page 3 of 3 h

e e

t APPENDIX B COVER LETTER & OUESTIONNAIRE s

sb

w. h'

O CY-CRDR APPENDIX B-1 (3

OUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS g.:

A design review of the Haddam Neck control room is being performed.

Its purpose is to determine the design adequacy of the control room and shutdown panel from an operational stand-point.

One of the best source of information for this review are the people who have had operational experience and have operated this unit.

That is why we have. requested your assistance.

The attached questionnaire is a part of the review process.

It has been prepared by the review team.

The purpose of the ques-tionnaire is to highlight any categories of design errors you feel have been made for possible improvement. We are also inter-ested in the good features you believe have been utilized in the design.

Follow-up interviews where necessary will be performed to clarify interpretation of your answers.

Please respond to the questions as they apply to your job or position, and in relation to your experience.

Where you feel unqualified to answer, please indicate so, and explain.

Full explanatory sentences are much more useful than yes-no answers, so please be an informative as possible.

Feel free to ask the NU project team any questions you may have concerning the questionnaire.

Phone numbers are included below for this purpose.

D. C. Heffernan 267-2556 ext. 4211 R.

K. McCarthy (NU) 665-3926 A. M.

Stave (NU) 665-3627

)

a CY CRDR APPENDIX B-2 V';

CY OPERATORS QUESTIONNAIRE This questionnaire is part of an NRC mandated Control Room Design Review (CRDR).

The major purpose of the CRDR is to identify areas in the Control Room which affect safe operations and cause problems under emergency conditions.

But we are expanding it to include anything in the control room that makes your life difficult.

We are especially interested in elements that might affect plant safety but don't hesitate to tell us about anE area that could be improved.

Information from these forms is between you and the CRDR team.

Although the design review team will know your name, the data relesed by them will contain only summarized information and thus no individual opinions or identities will be traceable.

Please respond to the following questions as they apply to your job or in relation to your experiences at CY.

Where comments are requested please be as specific as possible.

Use the back of the questionnaire or attach extra sheets of paper if you need more room.

Please put your name on each sheet you add to the form.

Also list the number of the question so that we can know which item you are answering on your sheets.

We can't promise to fix everything you tell us about but each item will be carefully looked at and if a practical solution is available it will be implemented.

i

CY CRDR APPENDIX B-3

~

'. ; '.g

-e PERSONAL INFORMATION NAME:

WORK PHONE:

POSITION / TITLE:

AGE:

HEIGHT:

EDUCATION:

Grammar School:

High School:

Year of College:

Degree (s):

Major Subject at College:

NUCLEAR EXPERIENCE (in years)

Utility:

Military:

At CY:

Other:

(Enere?)

9

i CY CRDR APPENDIX B-4 SL 9:

I.

CONTROL ROOM WORKSPACE I-1. What do you think of the general layout of the control room?

Excellent, Best I have seen Good, I have no sericus problems with it Average, There are some difficult tasks Poor, I have to be on my toes all the time a.

What are the things you like best about the CY layout?

b.

What are the th-i>!igt that bother you most about the control room laycut?

I-2. Do you have any problems getting to any control or storage spaces?

Can you see things you need to see?

Yes:

No:

Can you reach the things you need to reach? Yes:

No:

Please describe any problem areas.

/

A

5 T

i l

CY CRDR APPENDIX B-5 lS ult I-3. Where do you spend most of your time while you are on shift?

a.

From that point can you monitor all of the necessary parameters adequately?

Yes:

No:

(If no please describe the problem.)

I-4. Are there any control room tasks that require two men to perform?

Where must each man stand to do his job for each task?

h I-5. When working with reference documents (procedures, P& ids, etc.) do you have any problems understanding them?

Yes:

No:

a.

Do you have adequate working space to use them?

Yes:

No:

b.

Are they stored so you can get at them easily?

Yes:

No:

c.

Please describe any problem areas.-

/

,"?

.h

CY CRDR APPENDIX B-6

-5~5 re:

I-6. Below is a list of environmental factors that might cause problems in the control room.

From your experience at CY please rate them on their potential to degrade your performance.

Excellent Good Average Poor Ventilation Temperature Humidity Illumination Noise Excessive traffic Other (please describe) a.

Please comment on your choices.

I-7. Are there any instrument / controls needed to handle emergency or abnormal events that are not located in the primary operating area?

Yes:

No:

a.

Please describe the situation.

I-8. How could we improve the layout of the control room to make your work easier?

i

CY CRDR APPENDIX B-7 ISO.

i..

II.

COMMUNICATIONS II-1.

Please rate the communications at Connecticut Yankee.

Excellent Good Average Poor Operator to Operator Supervisor to Operator CR to rest of plant Telephone Maintenance Jack P/A System j

Radio a.

Please describe the problem (s) with the low rated systems.

/

b.

Based on the above how might things be improved?

II-2.

Do you ever have any problems determining who is talking or where he is talking from?

Yes:

No:

a.

Please describe any problem areas.

/

i CY CRDR APPENDIX B-8 e

11-3.

Have you ever tried to communicate while wearing a face

~.

mask?

Yes:

No:

a.

How did it go?

II-4.

Are there any spots in the plant where you have trouble contacting someone?

Yes:

No:

a.

Please explain the situation.

II-5.

Do communications noises interfere with conversations between operators?

Yes:

No:

a.

When does this seem to occur?

b.

How bad is the situation?

OK, We can live with it Bad, I have trouble understanding messages

Terrible, i

t 0

CY CRDR APPENDIX B-9 II-6.

What changes in the communications system would you like to see?

I I

III ANNUNCIATORS III-1. Do you have any problems with the annunciator system at CY?

Yes:

No:

a.

Please explain the situation.

t

)

III-2. Please rate the annunciator windows with respect to:

Excellent Good Averace Poor Legibility Color Code Grouping Locations a.

Comments on any of the above.

III-3 Do the alarm set points give you adequate time to respond to the situation before a serious problem develops?

a.

Please describe the problem areas.

(fhI f

CY CRDR APPENDIX B-10 4

$[*/

III-4. Would you like to see any changes to the sounds used in the Alarm system?

Louder Softer Different type of sound Additional types of sound to help in locating the alarm III-5. Please comment on any problems with annunciator controls.

)

)

~'

III-6. Would you make any changes to the words on the annunciator windows?

Identify annunciator tiles that require j

rewording.

Yes:

No:

i III-7. Are there any annunciators that are not needed?

(Nuisance alarms, etc.) If so please list the worst ones.

1

. +.. -

• I O

f 4

sr sw

-p=,-

v--

4 CY CRDR APPENDIX B-ll 473 III-8. Are the annunicators located near the applicable controls and displays?

Yes:

No:

a.

Please list the worst ones.

i III-9 Are therc any annunciators whose logic should be changed, i.e.,';he method of alarm activation or deactivation is not the best.

Yes:

No:

i 1

a Plese describe the situation as it presently exists and the problems encountered.

4 h

l

)

CY CRDR APPENDIX B-12

.. D IV.

CONTROLS IV-1.

Are there any controls in the control room that are no longer used?

Yes:

No:

a.

Please give location and label.

IV-2.

Are there any controls that could be (or have been) accidentally actuated?

Please consider two types of error:

Someone grabs the wrono control Where a control is bumped unintentionally Yes:

No:

/

a.

Please describe any situations you can remember.

IV-3.

Please identify controls that are "hard" to operate because:

Too much (or too little) force is required.

Too sensitive Not enough space is available.

IV-4.

Which controls are the most difficult to reach?

9 e

CY CRDR APPENDIX B-13 I5ECI IV-5.

Are there any controls that have developed; looseness, binding, backlash or other characteristics that they did not have when new?

Yes:

No:

a.

If yes, please identify the control and describe the problem.

IV-6.

Are there any controls that do not provide adequate

feedback, i.e., you can't easily tell if your control acton has been effective or not?

Yes:

No:

a.

Please describe the situation.

IV-7.

What improvements or changes would you like to see in the controls on the boards at CY?

f

e CY CRDR APPENDIX B-14 6d Cf/

V.

DISPLAYS i

V-1.

Are there any meters on the boards that are not used anymore?

Please list names and locations.

V-2.

Are there any meters that you don't trust very much?

Please identify them and tell us what is wrong.

V-3.

Please list any meters whose reading must be converted to some other form before they can be used.

What units do i

they presently have, and how must they be converted?

4 I

1 V-4 Which meters are the hardest to use?

Why?

e 4

f

.r

+-

~,

r-e-.---y

CY CRDR APPENDIX B-15

/En F.1.

V-5.

Are there any lights on the board that sometimes appear to i

be glowing when they are OFF.

1 Please identify the light and describe the situation.

V-6.

What information would you like to have on the boards that you don't have now?

How is the needed information developed at present?

V-7.

Do you have a problem using the recorders in the control room?

If so please describe them.

V-8.

Are there any displays that tend to stick so that you have to tap them to be sure they are reading properly?

Please list.

i i

0h.Y

CY CRDR APPENDIX B-16

f.,

S V-9.

Are there any instruments whose range has not been

'~

properly selected?

(The normal position is at the top or bottom of the scale.)

Please identify the isntrument and describe the problems.

V-10. ~What display improvements would you most like to see as a result of this design review?

\\_

t l

CY CRDR APPENDIX B-17

<0s

.y VI.

LABELS AND LOCATION AIDES VI-1.

Do you have any problems in picking out a particualr control or display from a large group of similar items?

Yes:

No:

a.

In what area of the boards is this situation encountered?

VI-2.

Are there any spelling errors on labels or annunciators?

Where?

i VI-3.

Does the labeling of controls and indicators adequately describe the function performed by the device?

VI-4.

Are the same abbreviations used consistently on controls, displays, procedures, and annunciators?

Where are the worst problems?

/

_ ~ _.

CY CRDR

-APPENDIX B-18

-91 9s!

VI-5.

Please comment on the panel mimicing.

Is it accurate?

If changes or additions are needed, please describe or sketch them.

o CY CRDR APPENDIX B-19 ea

-!5 VII.

PROCESS COMPUTER CY is in the process of obtaining a new process computer.

Although the hardware has been selected the answers to the questions below can influence the software features incorporated into the device.

VII-1. Please rate the response time of the process computer.

Excellent Good Slow Terrible What problems do.you have when response time is slow?

a VII-2. Are the names used in the compute.! the same as those used by you in normal control room work?

Yes:

No:

a.

Please list the ones you would like to have changed.

VII-3. How would you rate the ease with which the computer can be used?

Excellent Good Average Poor a.

What area gives you the most trouble?

~~-

4 J

l

4 CY CRDR APPENDIX B-20

.50%

.uf VII-4. Does the text on the alarm printer provide all of the information you need?

Yes:

No:

a.

What information should be added?

1 VII-5. Are the location of computer keyboards and CRTs satisfactory for your needs?

Yes:

No:

a.

What changes would you like to see?

VII-6. Is the data provided on the computer in the form you need or must you make conversions (apply formulas, change units, etc.)?

Yes:

No:

a.

Please describe the problem areas.

VII-7. Are there any improvements or changes you would like to see?

If so, please describe them.

i

CY CRDR APPENDIX B-21 L}.

ig ;*.*

VIII.

PANEL LAYOUT VIII-1.

Are the controls and displays on the boards better arranged for supporting normal or emergency operations?

Normal:

Emergency:

a.

Do you think this is the right way to go or would you change things?

VIII-2.

Within specific boards, are controls and displays that are used together located close to each other?

If not please describe the worst case problem areas.

VIII-3.

Which evolutions are the most difficult to carry out?

What causes the difficulty?

f G

i

CY CRDR APPENDIX B-22

$ l/

VIII-4.

In your opinion are too many or too few functions 75

~

performed automatically?

Too Many:

Too Few:

a.

Should operators hav greater or less system control?

Greater:

Less:

i l

l VIII-5.

Are emergency controls clearly marked and easy to find?

4 i

Yes:

No:

a.

Please describe problem areas.

i 1

i VIII-6.

Are there sets of controls and displays that carry out similar functions but are made up of different kinds of controls and meters?

Yes:

No:

a.

Do you see this as a problem?

Yes:

No:

If so please describe the situation.

4 I

1

.-.r y

.-=

0 1

CY CRDR APPENDIX B-23

.3 l

..Y VIII-7.

Please rate the layout of the following boards:

Excellent Good Average Poor A

B C

D t

E F

G H

AA BB CC DD I

EE l

FF VIII-8.

Are there any board layouts that you would like to change?

Please make a sketch showing the changes and explain and why?

Identify each sketch please.

I i

1 I

4

O CY CRDR APPENDIX B-24 4*s a

. ro:

IX.

CONTROL DISPLAY INTEGRATION IX-1.

What systems require skill to operate properly?

(i.e.,

you have to practice to be able to do the job right.)

What could we do to make that task (s) easier?

IX-2.

Which control / display sets have the most lag between control movement and display feedback?

Is this a problem for you IX-3.

Are there any settings that are hard to achieve because it is hard to read the required value off the meter provided for the purpose?

d IX-4.

Are needed displays always in view during control manipulation?

1

.c

s.

O CY CRDR APPENDIX B-25 4

' f-X.

GENERAL COMMENT

S

- j X-1 If we have missed anything or you have something you would like to add. Please do it below.

4 4

4 4

1 e

1 1

J i

i f

1 i

/

s I

...9 i

y y

,a

,-~

e-v u

---s p

w

1 i

a i

s CY - CRDR APPENDIX C-1

1. 35 HED FORM INSTRUCTIONS HED NUMBER:

Assign numbers consecutively using one of the fol-lowing prefixes (reviewer assign prefix, admin. assign number):

M = Meter TA = Task nalysis L = Labels S = Survey l

P = Panel C = Controls D = Displays C/C= Color Codes / Conventions A = Annunciator PE = Post Experience Comm. = Communications OE = Operator Experience W = Work Space E = Environmental PC = Process Computers G = General Experience i

2 TITLE:

One to four words that describe the system or component involved.

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

COMMENT:

One sentence stating the general type of ' discrepancy.

REVIEWER: The reviewer's initials.

DATE:

The date report prepared.

REFERENCE:

List the reference or guideline number.

I SOURCE:

Which CRDR activity; Survey, TA, HE Suit., Interview, t

etc.

IDENTIFICATION:

Panel; give panel number or name.

COMPONENT NAME:

Give the name and/or number of the instrument or 3

control that has the discrepancy.

ID or NUMBER:

List identification numbers.

DESCRIPTION:

Give details of the problem.,

(Do not say what should be done.)

?

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS:

Normally to be supplied later during assessment phase.

If you know a simple solution, make a note here when initially filling out.

RESOLUTION: To be supplied during correction phase.

Assign resolution code in parenthesis.

Describe authorized 3

resolution.

I

()

SIGNATURE: To be signed by the project manager having approval

. authority.

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

t f

CY - CRDR APPENDIX C-2

-g u HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY TITLE:

PRIORITY:

COMMENT:

1 Reviewer Date Ref.

Source IDENTIFICATION:

Panel:

Component Name:

ID or No.:

3 DESCRIPTION:

1 i

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS:

i i

RESOLUTION:

(Code

)

i i

7-4 Approved Signature

Date:

'45h;

/ / Additional page(s) attached L-6 f

w

---r-7.-,

p

-w-nss-,_.

..n, c--

~--

-w

CY - CRDR APPENDIX D A*.8 CONNECTICUT YANKEE CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW (CRDR)-

TASK ANALYSIS HED PRINCIPLES 1.

Are all the controls and displays required to perform this task present in the control room?

6111a 6411b 2.

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

i"'

6515d 6811 6821 6911c 6921b 3.

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

6514e & f 6533c 4.

Can the controls and displays used in this task be read

~

accurately from the operators' view position?

Can the displays be read while operating the associated con-trols?

6113c(2) 6122e(2) &f 6125a(2) & b(2) 6542b(2) 6911a 5.

Do the controls and displays give the operator direct, readily usable information if required?

(e.g.:

Parameter values Range, band and limits Trend information Rate of change Scale compatibility Digital or analog information Status or demand information i

Precision and feedback information 6411a & b 6511 6512 6541g 6931c 6932 gypg 6.

Is the control room arranged and staffed to ensure the C05) requirements of this task?

• L,v 6111b 6112 6113d 1

r, y

e,,

e

__%w,

---%-rw-

QI)

)

N')

e APPENDIX E-1 g

s CONNECTICUT YANKEE (CY) s Dl! TAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA MATRIX 6.1 Control Roorn Workspace NLJREG-0700 DATA COLLECTION COMMENTS /REFEltENCli METIIOD 5.1.1 General Layotst OER CRS TA

~[

6.l.1.1 Accessibility of histrutnent g

g p

Equipinent I

6.1.1.2 Consistensy of Manning witti

... I Equipinent Layout g

p g

6.1.l.3 Furniture and liquipinent layout P

6.1.l.4 Docurnent Organization and Storage

~~

P 6.l.l.5 Spare Parts, Operating Expendables and Tools P

4 i

P refers to Priinary Source for obtaining data S refers to Secondary Source for obtaining data 4

.q

-