ML18087A677

Control Room Design Review Program Plan.

ML18087A677
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	11/30/1982
From:	Public Service Enterprise Group
To:
Shared Package
ML18087A676	List: ML18087A675 ML18087A677
References
GL-82-33, PROC-821130, NUDOCS 8302220389
Download: ML18087A677 (69)

Text

,.

NOVEMBER 1982 SALEM GE*NERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2

=

CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW -.-,

.--._ PROGR.AM PLAN*

_J,___ 1 I

/:...... II

- NOTICE -

THE ATTACHED FILES ARE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE DIVISION OF DOCUMENT CONTROL. THEY HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO YOU FOR A LIMITED TIME PERIOD AND MUST BE RETURNED TO THE RECORDS FACILITY BRANCH 016. PLEASE DO NOT SEND DOCUMENTS CHARGED OUT THROUGH THE MAIL. REMOVAL OF ANY PAGE(S) FROM DOCUMENT FOR REPRODUCTION MUST BE REFERRED TO FILE PERSONNEL.

---

(. --- - .

DEADLINE RETURN DATE

.:-* 7--plf/O

• ----~----.....:._!

I I

I I

RECORDS FACILITY BRANCH

i

.l ---~'

r-i ,

I l

1*

I:

I.  :

r-~

i_~

[ '

~,

CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW i:-*~

L. . PROGRAM PLAN f0*

l *i For .

r' Salem Generating Station I .*

u November 1, 1982

["'1 d (Revised)

I I_ __ :

I I

L ...

I *,

I

g.

\.:_'___

t

[_..;

re. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

l. INT'RODUCTIQN G * * *

• o * *

• c *

• e * * * ** c G

• e e o c * *

• o o o* o "ci 11

• c c.

• G o o e e e *

• o a e o ct* o o c o Cl

• Bl 1.1 Purpose o

• e o ** Cl

• o ** e o

• o ** ci

• e *** o ** o o o **** o o o o o

• Q *- o ** o o

• a e ** o o ~

• o o 1 1.2 Scope

• e e e e e 2 n

0

• 0

• Cl 0 Cl *** 0

• 0 ** 0 0 ****** 0 0 0

• Cl *** 0

• 0 * *

• Cl

• 0 0 Cl * * *

• 0

• Cl G G

• Cl l.3 Schedule Cl ** 0 Cl ** 0

• 0

• II

• D *** 0

• 0 0 0 0

• 0 0 ,c,

• 0

• Cl ** *

• 0 0 C> G ** . . . . Cl

• e . * * * * . * * * * ** G

• 3; I !

L~

'"..; 2. M.AN'AGE?-mNT "AND STAFFINGc * * * * * * * * * * * *

• e *

• o o Ci o *

• e * * *

• e

• e ***

• m*e e*o * .6 r

Goe G *

• 2.1 Management of the Control Room Design Review Process *********.*** 6 2o2 Structure of the Review Team ***** ~ ***************************** 10 2.3 Integration of Control Room Review with Other Human Factors Activities *** o****************************12

• o*!'.

3. DOCUMENTATION. 'AND DOCUMENT CONTROL **** ~ ***.**** ~ ***.*******.**********,*. 15 3.1 Input Documentation *********.** 0 0 . ***ID Q. e 0 e Cl * * , *. o ~ ***** t) ********** 15 3.2 Output Dc>cumentation *** ~ ************** Cl-Cl * ., * * ., * * * * ., .

• o *********** 16t.

3.3 Document Control Procedures **************** ~ ...................... 16*

3.4 Management of HED Records *. e. e ***.*************.****** 17 0

II . . . . . ** *

• Cl * * *

4. PROCEDURES FOR THE CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW ************ ~ ............ 19 4.1 Operating EXperience Review **.*************** ****~***********

• ** 19 4.2 Control Room . Inventory **:******* D **** o * * * * * *-* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ * * ; ..* 21 4*.3 Control Room Survey ***** 0 . . . . . . . . . . Cle e e *

• G * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * . *  ! * * *

• 22 4.4 System Function Review and Task Analysis *********************** 23 4.5 Verification of Task Performance Capabilities ****************** 27

-~

4.6 Va*lidation of. Control Room Functions ************** ************** 28

[

5* HED ASSESSMENT AND RESOLUTION **********.***********************.****** 3 0 5.1 BED Categorization ********************************.****** * **** -** 30 5 .2 HED Resolution ******* e * *

• o * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . * * ~ * * * * . * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * ~3

5. 3* Schedule for Mod if ica tion *********.********** ******************** 33.

PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT ***************************************** APPENDIX A DOCUMENT.RECEIPT/DISTRIBUTION LOG FORM ********* * .APPENDIX B RESUMES e e e e e e e e * *. e e e e e e e e e e e II * ** APPENDIX C

( .

L

. r l__ j

J i

- .. **1 l

A r-1 -

[__-

1* INTRODUCTION The approach developed for conducting the Salem Units 1 and 2 Control Room Design Reviews is described in this Program Plan. Chapter 1 describes the purpose of the Program Plan as well its scope and schedule. Chapter 2 n

u describes the plan for managing and staffing the Control Room Design Review.

The anticipated input and output documentation and the procedures for

-'"'i,,

[ controlling both are contained in Chapter 3. *The methodology for performing the Control Room Design Review is described in Chapter 4. Finally, a

D .

systematic approach for assessing any human engineering discrepancies that are identified as a result of the Control Room Design Review is described in Chapter 5

• D '

The Program Plan, by definition, is flexible and subject to revision as f:l.

LJ the stages of the design review progress. Since the Program Plan serves as input documentation to the design review process, the original document and subsequent revisions will be controlled in accordance with the procedures described.in Chapter 3 *

. 1.-1 Purpose The purpose of the Program Plan is to ensure that the Control Room Design Review satisfies govern:ment and industry requirements, the results are under-standable and usable, and the benefits of human factors engineering are reflected in the control room design. Since the design review is rather I

l ~ involved and at times complex, the Program Plan also. documents the* review process, prov_iding t_raceabili ty of both the _process and the results of the LJ review.

--- \

.. I

~ __; '

I I

r---~ " 1

IL_....:

n,__

!. l."2 Scope I  :

n L...l The detailed control room design review will encompass the vertical panels and the console *in the Salem Units 1 and 2 control rooms and.theil:*

corresponding hot shutdown panels. General Physics Corporation will provide.

human factors consulting services.

The Scope of General Physics involvement in the Control Room Design Review is tog rl.J

• Review input documentation, including any applicable operating

[

-:=>.!.

-~

experience data, plant design information, and app~icable standards and regulations.

• Survey operations personnel *

• Provide an inventory of the control room instrumentation to meet the guidelines in NUREG-0700.

0

• Perform a control room surv.ey which compares the control room design ~ith accepted human*engineering guidelines.

• • Determine the input and output requirements of control room operator tasks by preparing a list of systems and systems functions *and analyzing specific control room operator tasks.

• Ver.ify that the tasks analyzed *can be performed in the existing control room.

• Validate that control room functions can be exercised.

l j '

• Assist in the assessment of any human engineering discrepancies L-uncovered in any of the review steps.

[ Each of these items is described in more detail in Chapter 4. A flow chart depicting the interaction between the various items is shown in-Figure l. The r:

L consultant will provide a monthly progress report indicating funding and scheduling status, a draft report describing the review and the re.sults of the review, a final report based on P~blic Service Electric and Gas comments on the draft report, and *support for PSE&G during the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Review.

r*-~

II **.

i

• 2

I -

\ -~;

1.3 Schedule

,-~

'I The Design Review is a complex process involving numerous elements. A schedule depicting the time-lines of major events is shown in Figure 2.

r ,*

l.....

D n!

I L.::

C-'

";

r*

I L

f -*

. . I

!L-*,.,I 3

i! ~-

'.~

• 1 Fµ>W OiART OF OCRDR ACTIVI';t'IES

• 1~

~

I i L_;*

CONTROL ROOM INVENTO~Y OPERATING n EXPERIENCE J 1

~ REVIEW SYSTEM FUNCTION REVIEW

& TASK ANALYSIS I

-* - . ---~- -* .I 0 l

. VERIFICATION OF TASK _PERFORMANCE CAPABILITIES 0 ,

n CONTROL ROOM VALIDATION*

HED ASSESSMENT c

r--

HED IMPROVEMENT/

IMPLEMENTATION

'I .:

\_

Figure l

,.. .. "\

~--

L/* J R

4 . "/

/,

\  ;

l ....!

. .)

1--:--~.

r--~-:-.

I,.. _....i C-..J il.:..__~-....--..._._ '*)

I.._. **~ ~~

.~ I 1~83 1982 SALEM DCRDR NOV DEC JAN FEB fv'IAR APR. MAY JUN!:;' *JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB PROGRAM PLAN I

/

OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW

' I I

Examine Documents '

I i i l Survey Personnel I ' ' \ . I / I  : I  !

C.R. INVENTORY I. I 1*

Input Inventory Data 1.' ' ' '"

c:R. SURVEY Perform .Checklist SYSTEM FUNCTION REVIEW & T.A.

l.D. System Describe System Function

.11 Select Events **

V.T. Methodology .,

T.A. Methodology Prefill T.A.

Postfill T.A.

VALIDATE C.R. FUNCTIONS Walkffalk Throughs Real Time Simulations (V.T.)

VERIFICATION I

I i

i I

I I

l Compare Task Requirements to Inventory I i Verify Adequacy For Use DOCUMENTATION Compile and Categorize HEDS .. ' '

I (Prior & Present) i

.. i i  !

I Write Report '

I ' i Figure 2 I I

I I

I I I.

p..

\ __ ;

l l '.*

2. MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING Chapter 2 of the Control Room Design*Review Program Plan addresses the management and staffing aspects of the review. Section 2.1 describes how the review process will be managed. Section 2.2 describes the structure and qualifications of the review team. A discussion of how the Control Room 0

f '!

Design Review interfaces with and is integrated into the other human.factors activities is contained in Section 2.3.

ri l

l

.:..~

2.1 Management of the Review Process c '

An overview of the sequence of events that comprise the Control Room r: Des-ign Review is contained in this section. The events described include data.

-j t J gath~ring, analysis and documentation of results. The overview- is presented

.(-"\ . in a sequential ~nner, although individual events may at times occur Il concurrently. The Schedule in Chapter 1 displays the relationship of the LJ individual events in the overall time,-frame of the review process.

n U '

Ae Kick-Off Meeting An initial meeting will be held between PSE&G and the human factors consultant, General Physics. The objectives of this meeting are to:

• Establish review team structure and contacts

• Review and finalize the project schedule

• Obtain existing~ applicable documentation Each of these objectives is discussed below.

L (1) Establish review team structure and contacts. During the kick-off meeting, individuals from both PSE&G and General Physics *.

will be identifi. ed as members of the Control Room Design Review f *: ~', Team. Specific authority and responsibilities for each team Lj*

)

6

r I ; l l ;

.~

-'

\ member will be identified and agreed upon. In addition, an I '

• i .. .J individual from both organizations will be designated as the primary contact for that organization. Reference Section 2.*2 for the proposed strucutre of the design ~eview team.

(2) Review and finalize the project schedule. During the kick-_pff n meeting members from both PSE&G and Genera_l Physics will review I :

I. ~

L_J the project schedule (reference Section 1.3). Specific tasks

. will be scheduled ~6 permit an uninterrupted work flow for the r

review team, at the same time minimizing interference with control room operations. The end result will be a schedule u

Ci extending from the beginning of the review through preparation and issuance of the final report.

[ j .!.

• ( 3) Obtain existing, applicable documentation. The kick-off meeting will take place at the PSE&G office and the initial data-gathering activity will begin at this meeting. The specific documentation is listed in Section 3.1.

11

~ . J.

L.J Review Documentation n

tJ The documentation that was obtained at the kick-off meeting is to be reviewed to:

• Prepare for the control room inventory and survey

• Identify factors that may impact operator performance

• Conduct an operating experience review

\.._J This review will be specifically geared toward obtaining information to be used in defining systems functions and analyzing operator tasks.

r-:

\ :

n: 7 l  ;'.j

1.,.:

c. Conduct Ph-ase I Site-Visits I -

Site visits will be conducted to:

• Inventory the control room *

• Survey the control room *

• • Survey operating personnel

• At the conclusion of these site visits, General Physics will have a listing of the instrumentation in the control room; a listing of Human Engineering Discrepancies (HEDs) identified during the Survey and a listing of inputs to the review from the operating personnel. GPC will

[ also conduct an exit meeting with the PSE&G review team at the completion of each site visit.

o. Define System Functions and Analyze Operator Tasks Systems important to safety will be identified from a li~ting of plant systems supplied by PSE&G. _ Using the results from the control room Fl inventory, those systems that. are important to safety and a-re represented lJ in the control room will be determined. - A functional description of each of these systems that are important to safety and are locatP.d in the control room will be prepared. From this, operating events to be analyzed r will be identified. These operating events will be chosen to ensure that I

I.-*

all systems which are important to safety and are represented in the co_ntrol room are exercised. The operator tasks which are involved in each

- of the. operating events will then be analyzed. A special forni for the

--, Task Analysis will be "pre-filled" for each operating event to analyze r

operator tasks and operator/system interactions. The descriptions of systems and functions and the pre-filled task analysis forms .will then be revie~ed by PSE&G prior to the next step.

u u

.\1 8

('

) :~

(~ .. ~

E. Conduct Phase II Site-Visits

i. ~*

?ite-visits will be conducted to videotape the.operating events that were analyzed in the previous step. Operators will walk and talk through these operating events in the control room or in the simulator, as n available. The information in the p~e-filled task analysis forms will be tJ reviewed and perhaps revised during these walk~throughs.

[' , F. Analyze the Videotapes to Identify HEDs nI.; After the operating event has been videotaped, oper;ators will be u

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

-.c,. . analysis forms* and the videotape.. The result may be a second listing of

[

.)

HEDs that were not identified during the control room survey.

G. Assess HEDs

• II r-:-::-1 i**:*1

! *_1 1.. :J .The HEDs that were identified during the control room survey'and during the operating e~ent walk-throughs will be assessed for their safety implications. HEDs identified as having safety implications or potential for *safety implications will be categorized and a resolution

'~i l  ; implementation schedule will be reconunended. These assessments and Li recommendations will be used as input to the Phase II final report.

_H

• Prepare Final Report

.IF":*1.

i.._.} Th_e methodology employed in the Control Boom Design Review and the findings that resulted from the review will be documented in a draft report prepared by General Physics for PSE&G. The draft report will be finalized based on comments provided by PSE&G.

I. Participate In NRC Review Meeting

\  ;

u General Physics will' support PSE&G utility at any NRC meeting concerning the Control R9om Design Review.

• 9

\ ---

( -

i J. Project Progress ~eports and Memorandum Reports i .

• - ' /

To ensure that the activities described in these ten*steps are performed in a timely and cost-effective manner, General Physics will

[j

-~

prepare a monthly progress report throughout the project. The progress report (see sample in Appendix A) will indicate both* funding and scheduling status. In addition, General Physics will _issue memorandum reports to PSE&G throughout the Review to allow timely review of perceived problems.

2.2 Structure of the Review Team r-.*

u Personnel from PSE&G and GPC will work directly.on the Detailed Control Room Design Review~ A description of each ~eview team follows.

A. The PSE&G review team consists of the following four positions:

• Project Manager

- 0 Engineering Coordinator 1

~:1.

- ,J, u

• Operations Coordinator 0 Design Coordinator n

1 --1_

• ":I The project manager is responsible- for providing support to the I : coordinators in the area of decision making throughout the project to ensure LJ satisfactory completion. The project manager also:

0- Provides administrative support for the project

• Interfaces with the GPC review team when necessary The individual assigned as project manager of the Control Room Design Review

• - - team is* a member of PSE&G's Controls Division. This individual has the

'I

~-~*

education and experience necessary to function as project manager and team leader.

r--

The engineering coordinator is responsible for coordinating the entire r --

1 -!

1*: Control Room Design Review. The engineering coordinator also:

(__.l

• - Maintains direct communication between PSE&G and the GPC review team.

\

(. .

• Works with opera'):ions and design coordinators_to provide the

/___ I necessary documentation for the design review.

\  ;

u 10

l The responsibility of the operations coordinator is to provide all operations support necessary for the review. The requirements of GPC along with the other me~ers of the PSE&G review team will determine the type of support r- which will be provided by the operations coordinator. This individual is also required to interface with members of the GPC review team as it becomes

,- necessary.

i I

I..

r* The responsibility of the design coordinator is to provide all design I

i support necessary for the review. The requirements of GPC along with the

,. other members of the PSE&G review team will determine the type of support i

i\_.__ which will be provided by the design coordinator. This individual is also required to interface with members of the GPC review team as it becomes necessary.

r** B. The General Physics review team consists of the following three positions:

i

• • Project Manager

'-*

• Project Director

• Projeet Staff  :

The project manager is responsible to PSE&G for all project work and I

i reports administratively to the project director. The p~oject manager has the I

responsibility and authority to:

r.

.* Prepare the project quality plan

• Implement qual_i ty assurance procedures

• Maintain communication with PSE&G on quality *affecting project

( . activities t --

The individual assign~d as project manager of a Control Room Design Review is a mei:nqer of the General Physics Human Factors Engineering Group. This individual has the education and experience necessary to function as project

! manager and team leader of a Control Room Design Review.

L*~

The project director_ is ~esponsible for ensuring that the ~reject manager i

has the support of General Physics Corporate Resources, when necessary, to support the project. The project director reports through department and L_.

n:

(" __

f r *-

I

(_ :*

divis'ion management to the *office of the president ct: General Physics.

I The rl~-*

project director has the responsibility and authority to:

r1 L.;;

Assist the project manager in staffing the project Coordinate technical support for the project

,.,.,

• Provide administrative support for the project l;

L...!

The project staff members report to the project manager. The staff

[ members participate in data.collection, analysis, and report writing and at times may directly interface with PSE&G personnel. Depending upon the extent n

u of utility expertise and participation in the review process, the staff may consist of per.sonnel with the following expertise:

w

~:.-

• Human facto.rs engineering r:?. l

• Power plant operations

_J Cl Training

• Systems analysis

[1

• Design engineering

• Computer applications

{ .. i ,

.r Each staff member on the review team will be assigned specific r-*1 responsibilities corresponding to his or her level of education and experience in the required area of expertise.

r-1 A diagram showing the design review team.structure and the primary r-- -~. contacts between PSE&G and General Physics is shown in Figure. 3. Individual I1..__j role assignments are provided with the resumes in Appendix c ..

[\ 2.3 Integration of Control Room Design Review with Other Human Factors Activities r*:

i :

The CRDR will be interfaced with other on-going human factors programs at the Salem Generating Station. Examples of other relevant work are shown in

[ Figure 4.

(""i I

I L.-'

i c~

I l u

r---; ,....,.----.... ,-~

~-.-., *. ~- .. -..:

,--- -- .. i

\. ~- . f .. i I._ ** _.,/

l L__ ._ ... *~J . j L - - j *~. .....'.)

GENERAL PHYSICS CORPORATION PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS PROJECT MANAGER I I I PROJECT DIRECTOR PROJECT MANAGER

!ENGINEERING COORDINATOR DESIGN COOR DINA TOR I OPERA TJONS COORDINATOR I I TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SUPPORT CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR PROJECT STAFF, PRIMARY LINES OF COMMUNICATION

- - - - - - CORPORATE BOUNDARIES Figure 3 Design Review Teain Structure

r-*

1* \ l

I L....

NUREG-0660 I\ .. ..:

TMI ACTION PLAN

!;

L__; If*.

n NUREG-0737

~

1._) TMI CLARIFICATION Other Action Plan Items r-,

! . NUREG/CR-1580 I"'---*. HUMAN ENGINEERING GUIDE (DRAFT)

("'

u

!'! .. l NUREG-0659

., , STAFF SUPPLEMENT f: *..

. .:...J

~ -

NUREG-0899 r-; GUIDELINE S FOR NUREG-0696 FUNCTIONAL

.I r. _ _;

! THE PREPAR ATION I\ CRITERIA OF EMERG ENCY OPERATI NG \

\

I' EMERGENCY

,--1 PROCEDU RES I FACILITIES

'.".1 \

l _! \

11' I

I

\

NUREG-0700 I I'

I CONTROL ROOM r ..

NU REG/CR* 1750 ANALYSIS &

RECOMMENDA TIONS

/

I DESIGN REVIEW

' ,_'\ I r*--~---~

REGULATORY I I CONCERN ING "t GUIDE1.97 I

~-.__1 I I OPERATOR LIC ENSING '-3------~~

r**

~*  :

NUREG-0801 EVALUATION CRITERIA (DRAFT) i .

i '

Figure 4 Relationship Between NUREG-0700 DCRDR and Other*NUREG Documents 14

I  : I

( _

r-,

3* DOCUMENTATION AND OOCUMENT CONTROL I:

~

!*-**, ' A large number of documents will be referenced and produced during the Control Room Design Review. Therefore, a systematic method for controlling these documents is necessary. The input and output documentation that has

• been identified to date and the process by which these documents will be controlled is descr ib.ed in this chapter.

3.1 Input Documentation

. The following documents have been identified as possible reference

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

[

-~

j Therefore the following list of documents, if available, is preliminary.

• Licensee Event Report.s o Incident Reports * -

--;

[*~J'

• Fault trees and failure mode and effects analyses

• Final Safety Analysis Report e Systems* descriptions o Piping and instrumentation drawings e *Control room floor plan

• Panel layout drawings

• Panel photographs o Lists of acronyms and abbreviations used in the control room o Descriptions of coding conventions used in the control room

[ o Software descriptions, including CRT formats and content e Samples of computer printouts

,--~

1-

, '

• Procedures currently in use (emergency, operating, etc.)

• Operator training materials e Control Room Preliminary Assessment

• *Guidelines for_procedure development 0 Instrumentation and controls list

• Annunciator and label engraving lists 15

I I 3.2 output Documentation L_:

f.~ Throughout the review process documents will be processed-' to record data, document analyses and record findings. Whenever possible, and appropriate, standard forms will be developed *and utilized. All of the documentation produced during the course of the review will be controlled in accordance with the procedures described in Section 3.3. The following list represents a r:

I ;

L.:..: preliminary estimate of the types of documents that will result from the

• review and be submitted by General Physics to PSE&G:

I,

• Control Room Design Review Program Plan

• Project schedule

• List of control room instrumentation c

• Control room survey checklists Operator questionnaire

• Human Engineering Discrepancy form D I

• Project memorandum. reports 0 List of plant systems

• List of systems repre~ented in the control room

• Description of control room.safety systems functions c *

• Description of operating events analyzed Task analysis form \

• List of HEDs assessed according to their safety implications

• Summary Control Room Design Review Report 3.3 Documentation Control Procedures I 1 I The General Physics Project Manager will designate a review team member who will be responsible for documentation control. All- documents

. received .

from PSE&G, used as primary input to the review, or generated during the

,... review wili be subject to the following control procedures.

I.

L

[

16

r---.

i I

\ ... -'

A. Log-in Procedures r*-.

I ,

t -* All documentation received and generated during the review will be logged into the GPC Document Receipt/Distribution Log. The.log contains r;

i~ .._." the document iqentifier, the revision level, the. date received,. and individual(s) to whom the document is distributed (see Appendix B).

l I* I B. Internal Routing I' .,

~.~

After documents have been logged, they are routed to review team

( members. If the document is too large to be routed, e.g., an FSAR, a memo I I u giving the document date, title, and revision will be routed.* After all team members have signed the routing sheet, the document will be returned to .the* document control person.

Log-Out *procedures In a: manner s'imilar ~o the log-in procedures, all documents will be controlled through a log-out procedure~ Once again, the document identifier, the revision level, the date sent, and to whom it is distributed will be logged. In the case of revisions, the s~erseded r-~* version can*be recalled concurrently with issuance of the latter version u

I '

using the Document Rece.ipt/Distribution Log Form (see Appendix ~).

D. Document Filing I[__, All project documents will be maintained in a project file.* The document control person will periodically insure that no material has been

[ removed from the* file that has not been properly logged-out.

I ,

I

• 3~4 Manage-inent of HED Records

[_;

All information pertaining-to HEDs 'Will be stored in the General Physics L Corporation PRlME I-1000 computer via General Physics' HEDSMAN (Human

!_ngineering ..§_torage and MANipulation) System. The HEDSMAN software was written specifically for the collection, storage, manipulation and tracking of HED-associated data. The system will be used to provide assurance that all 17

r*-~ ~

\ __ ,

HED data are accurately recorded, organized, and assessed. Cross-referencing

• among files will be provided. Fo~. example, all componen~ infprmation for an HED can be compared to the data collected during the Control Room Inventory.

Furthermore, an inquiry .to the HED data file can result in a listing of all HEDs affecting any system, subsystem, or componento i

I .

\._:

r1

(_j

~- _...

I i

L~

('"*

I

(_

r*-

' _;'

L_

18

!~-.

l __

J. 1 4* PROCEDURES FOR THE CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW i

I, A description of how the control room design review process is to be accomplished is contained in this chapter. The review is divided into the r*--.

) : following:

r .....

• Operating Experience Review

• Control Room Inventory r--.

II ;'

• Control ~m Survey l .....: *o System Function Review and Task Analysis-

• Ver ification of Task Performance Capabilities Validation of Control Room Functions and Integrated Performance

• Capabilities.

r _j A procedure fo~ each follows. However, at this stage the procedures are r1 I :

preliminary and may be* revised as the. review progressese t.J 4 .1 Operating Experience P-!view Two separate steps are involved in reviewing operating experience. The first is to review available and applicable documentation: The second is to survey operating perso~nel. Each is addressed separately.

I

L..:

A. Documentation Review Operating experience documentation will be reviewed in an effort to I"

I .. i9entify problems.that have occurred in the past which could impinge on l~ control room operations *. Therefore, the following items will be r ..

considered as possible review documents.

Licensee Event Reports

• Final Safety* Analysis Report Modifications to Technical Specifications

'I ,...,

I i

!

• Incident Reports r-*

L 19

• 4.2 Control Room Inventory An inventory of all instrumentation, controls, and _equipment in the control room will be prepared. Instrumentation, controls, and *all equipment 0 used for remote sh~tdown will also be inventoried. The inventory will

identify systems and subsystems: instrumentation and controls (components) related to each: emergency equipment, conununication devices, procedur-es and any other items physically present in the control room. Selected features of instruments to be specified include parameter ranges and unit of measure *

. Prior to actually performing the inventory, the following documents will be reviewed:

• - Plant layout

.. *-* Control room layout A/E drawings

• 'Instrumentation and controls listing

• Annunciator and label engraving lists

• *cRT formats and content in hardcopy 0 Plant operating ~rocedures lJ

• Control room photographs Photographs of the control room will be provided for use. in the review. There are three objectives for obtaining control room photographs:

• To provide an "as built" documentation of the control board at the beginning of the review and to provide an overall reference for the control room for later identified HEDs.

• To document corrective measures taken in an ef'fort to resolve the HED's and, **

• To provide a necessary element of a control room review for submittal to the NRC *.

\ '.

Li Once the control room** inventory is complete, all items physically located

'?

in the control room and remote shutdown area will have been identified. The results will be documented in a form suitable for use during the verification of task performance capabilities.

( ...

1,.::

I .

"Also, any other documen~ation that could provide insight into control room operability will be reviewed *.. Industry-wide information .on plant;s most similar to Salem will also be surveyed in an effort to identify useful documentation.

r-.. General Physics and PSE&G.will agree upon the list of documents to be l! __._;i reviewed prior to this step of the review. Any problems that are identified .as having potential impact on control room operations will be documented and examined* later in the process.

l...

r~

1. __

B. Operating Personnel Survey eli~it r-

1. Operating personnel will be surveyed to information regarding l.... positive.and negative aspects that have been noted during actual or

r. simulated operation. A questionnaire will be used to sample operation 1  ! opinion and elicit recommendations. Areas that will be addressed inc~ude:

I' I. _.J;

• Controls

• Displays

[

• Annunciators and alarms

• Procedures

[

• Computer systems

• Works~ace environment

• Control room workspace 0 Panel layout The information collected from the operations personnel will be documented for examination later- in the review process. Follow-up r*-~ interviews with respondents will be scheduled, as necessary, to clarify or elaborate on questionnaire results.

{ *-,

I L.~

2o

4.3 Control Room Survey The purpose of the* control room survey is to compare design features of the control room to the human engineering guidelines presented in NOREG-0700 and other relevant human factors standards. Checklists will be used to nI . provide a thorough and efficient meth~ by which.direct observation and I  ;

I Lc.J 1

measurement of control room features may be undertaken. The checklists organize. guideline items under the broad categories of instruments, equipment, layout, and ambient conditions. In the control room survey, checklists will be used to eva,luate each system with the 'purpose of identifying control room

[_ j .,

characteristics that do not conform to accepted human engineering practices.

Thus, the survey will be used to identify discrepancies which will later be evaluated as to their potential effects in the final*systems context.

While most of the checklist items* are applicable at the component level,.

D some guidelines apply- to specific task uses of instruments and equipment, 'task l

sequence requirements, communications requirements or other aspects of dynamic

[ _j pperation. These dynamically-oriented guidelines may be most appropriately addressed from the task or function perspective described in Section 4 .4.

Specifically, checklist items will. be hierarchically organized for

t'eference ease and will provide space for an indication of compliance or r

__!.,

l noncompliance to each guideline. When lack of compliance is found, a specific.

Il reason or reasons will be clearly described in an adjacent space. Items which

! ___ * ' require further documentation of a human engineering discrepancy will be described in greater detail as a separate record cross-referenced to the checklist. Photographic evidence of at least one example of each type of HED.

will also be provided if feasible.

[

L r***,

I '

I '

i :

~

r L-.J

• Some guidelines wi11 *be addressed primarily on a control-room wide basis

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

control r~m layout, and environmental factors. Others.will be approached on

-c:..

.:..;

a control-room wide basis first, and then panel-by-panel, such as the annunciator system. and layout. Still other guidelines will be evaluated element-by-element, and then for general control roomcc;:insistency, such as 0 controls, displays, labels, and location aids.

[ Finally, control and display functional grouping and integration will be

• examined panel-by-panel and control-room wide. Control room operators or s*upervisors will be especially helpful at this stage given t_heir detailed*

knowledge of the panels as well as their operations experience.

o* c

• 4.4 System Function Review and Task Analysis

~ The flow of activities which comprise the system function review and task

_ analysis is represented in Figure S. This* step in the review process is

. F_~'*

13- .. performed to determine the input and output requirements of operator tasks involved in selected opera~ing events. These requirements will be used later

.; . in.- the review to assess the adequacy of the control room design *. For clarity~

• }

\ . the procedure fo_r determining* these input and output requirements is divided into the following four parts:

• Identify systems

• Describe system functions

• Identify event sequences

[

• Identify and analyze operator tasks

[~ Each is discussed separately below.

[ A. Identify Systems From plant documentation, a list of plant systems will. be prepared.

From this list, those that are important to safety will be identified.

LIST PLANT SYSTEMS 1*

IDENTIFY SAFETY-RELATED SYSTEMS 1

PREPARE FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION OF SAFETY-RELATED SYSTEMS SELECT OPERATING EVENTS FOR ANALYSIS PERFORM ".PRE-FILL" TASK ANALYSIS FOR SELECTED OPERATING EVENTS I

VIDEOTAPE WALKTHROUGH OF SELECTED OPERATING EVENTS REVISE PRE-FILLED TASK ANALYSIS FORMS USING VIDEOTAPES DETERMINE HEDs FROM COMPLEJ.ED

• • TASK ANALYSES

figure 5 Systems Function Revie*., and,_ Task Analysis 24

-. -*-....."\

c. Identify Event Sequences Two sources- of information will be used.as the primary basis fcir

- identifying the event sequences to be analyzed. The first is the result of the operating experience review. If a particular event has been problematic in the Salem plant or in similar plants, it will be identified and analyzed. The second is the list of systems that were identified as being important to safety. The objective in identifying events to be analyzed is to choose events which will exercise all of the systems that are identified as being important to safety. Therefore, a matrix-type form will be developed to compare "safety important" systems and operating events. In this manner, operating events will be chosen to ensure that each major system that is impor.tant to safety is included in* the task analysis. The types r, of operational events that will be considered for analysis are:

L '.*'"*-..,

! (..__/)

,-

• Small break LOCA L. ** Start-up from hot standby to minimum load

• Anticipated transient witho~t_scram, ~ollowing loss of main feedwater r-*

I j

L

• Inadequate core cooling

...

• Steam generator tube failure

• Shutdown for refueling

• Large break LO:A

• Control room evacuation The list of events to be analyzed will be approved by PSE&G p'rior to the initiation of task analyses.

D. Identify and Analyze Operator Tasks After the operational events have been identified, task anlaysis forms will be pre-filled for each event. The purpose of the pre-filled task analysis form is to document the operator tasks and task resource

( .....

.... -..... ..,.____ _ requirements necessary to perform the operator functions required in each operating event analyzed.

The primary criteria that will be used to determine* the safety importance of systems is whether the system is designated as safety-related, e.g.'

Class lE, in the plant documentation. In additio~, the following three factors will be considered:

• Manual control systems needed by the opera tor for real-time support to prevent plant trips.*

• Manual control systems needed by the operator for* post-trip control of decay-heat transfer from the core to the various heat sinks in the plant.

• The degree of interconnection on non-class lE systems. A system which is highly interconnected with other systems may be a source for causing many systems to fail as failure may propagate over the connections.

After the syStems have been designated as being important to safety, those systems whlch are controlled or monitored in the control room will be identified.

B. Describe System F*unc.tions ,

Descriptions of the functions for each of the sy~tems identified in the previous step will be prepared. The list is comprised of those systems that are important to safety and are con~rolled or monitored in the control room. These system descriptions will include:

• The function{s) of the system {"function" is defined as a mission or goal)

• Under what conditions the system is used

• A brief explanation of how the system operates These descriptiOns will be used as input to the task analysis.

- ---*---*---*---------***--*~*---*----*. -* **"****--** *-* -****.-- *-*-- -

The task analysis forms will be pre-filled prior to on-site visits to minimize time on site and disruption to the plant control room. _The system functional descriptions will be used as the .starting. point during r-**-

1 these paper-and-pencil task analyses. Tasks explicit and implicit in I

\

1 ... -

procedures will also be identified arid described. For each task, operator

• actions and informatfon requirements will be drafte~. The information contained on the task analysis form will include:

o Operator subtasks

• Description of operator behavior j' System/subsystem j

I. c 0 *rnput requirements

• Output requirements

• O System/subsystem response r* -

• Time sequence I

"/)

• System performance criteria r ....\ __.I e *consequences to plant of error /omission.

Functional descriptions and procedures will not provide sufficient detail t9 allow the task analysts to fully determine sequential ordering of actions, control/display location, optional elements, minimum symptoITIS to f

• diagnose a problem, and other information at the task element level. Some of this information will be provided by station personnel prior to the walk-throughs. The remainder will be collected during real-time i

performance of the events (reference Section 4.6).

L.

4.5 Verification of Task Performance Capabilities The objective of performing this step in the review process is to determine if the instrumentation and controls that the operators need to perform their tasks are available in the control room and, if they are, to determine i f the design' allows for effective human/machine interface. In order to ensure that this step has been adequately addressed, the procedure described below will be performed_ at least twice. The first time will be prior to the on-site visit when the talk-throughs of the operating events are conducted. The second time will be after the video-tapes of the walk-throughs have been analyzed.

Briefly, the procedure for determining if the necessary instrumentation and controls are available, and if there are any interface problems connected with the simulated operating event, is as follows:

e Information on input and output requirements from the task analysis forms will be compared with the control *room inventory list.

• Any instrumentation or controls that are required but not present in the control room will be noted as* possible HEDs *

.

• If the instrumentation parameters do not agree with the parameter information requirements it will be noted as a possible HED.

• . If instrumentation or control features do not allow successful task completion, they will be noted as possible HEns.

• The possible HEDs ide_ntified prior. to the walk-throughs will be evaluated to ascertain if they constitute a discrepancy in the contex~ of the control room.

• After the operating event walk_-throughs have been analyzed, additional HEDs may be identified.

After the selected operating' events have been analyzed, a check will be made to .determine "if the control room contains instrumentation or equipment that may not be necessary. If this condition exists, additional evaluations will be performed to ascertain if the instrume~tation or equipment s:1ould be altered or removed. -

The procedures identified in this section will result in a compilation of*

HEDs that have been identified throughout the Control Room Design Review process. If an item is identified as a possible HED, and is later found to not actually be a discrepancy*, it will be eliminated from further analysis.

4 .6 Validation of Control Room Functions After the task analysis has been pre-filled and verified as described in Sections 4.4 and 4.5, a walk-through of. the selected operating events will be conducted. At this time, any additional information will be recorded on the task analysis form. The operating event walk-through will be video-taped to provide a means for later analyses of the tasks and to minimize the time required on site. If the simulator is available, the walk-through will be

e .

,---.,

( \ video-taped in a real-time situation. If not*, '.~ simulated walk-through will be video-taped in the control room or in an authentic mock-up. As much information* as possible will be collected during the walk-through. However, it is anticipated that the major portion of the task analysis information obtained from the Wa.lk throughs will be recorded and analyzed from t}:le video~

tapes at a later date.

The primary purpose of this *step is to identify dif.ficulties, based on the control room design, in accomplishing the necessary tasks involved in the operating event, to ascertain the validity of previously identified discrepancies, and to identify any discrepancies not previously recorded.

Once the video tapes have been analyzed, the task analysis forms will. have been completed. Then the procedure described in Section 4.5 will be repeated to finalize the list of HEDs identified throughout .the review proeess.

/

/

5. HED ASSESSMENT AND RESOLUTJ;ON The design review team, comprised of PSE&G personnel and General Physics personnel will assess identified discrepencies and recommend corrective actions for their resolution in an iterative review process. Descriptions of procedures for assessing and categorizing HEDs and recommending corrective actions are contained in this chapter.

• HED categorization

• HED resolution

• Sc.hedule for modification A procedure for each follows. These procedures are tentative and subject to revision *

..( -:--\, 5.1 HED Categorization

....... _._../

The categorization process is designed to assess and prioritize HEDs.

Review team members from both PSE&G and General Physics will participate in the categorization of HEDs. All identified HEDs will be categorized as follows:

• Category I - HEDs Associated with Documented Error

• Category II - HEDs Associated with Potential Errors o Category III - HEDs Associated with Lo~ Probability Errors of

• Serious Consequence e Category IV - Non-significant HEDs The categorization process is shown in Figure 6. Categorization.will be determined by:

(**~.

• Previously documented errors

\.__.:./

• O:RDR team judgement of potential for error e Cumulative or interactive effects

• Impact on plant operational safety

-- ..** -- .*.*.*. 0 -****--** .. ***

t

• .**/,,.,.,--\ HED CATEGORIZATION PROCESS

\ '

No No r--,

l .

'L..

CAT Ill

~ *-c*) . L.------1

• • .*../LOW PROBABILITY No CAT I

. ERRORS WITH SERIOUS .

CONSEQUENCES I DOCUMENTED l --

\.

ERRORS r . Yes CAT II

• i No POTENTIAL, INTERACTIVE

' , & .CUMULATIVE ERRORS CAT IV NON-SIGNIFICANT HEDS Figure 6 (adapted from NUREG-0801)

A~ Category I - HEDs Associated with Documented Errors All HEDs which have been previously documented (as determined by the -

operating experience review described in Section 4.1) as having contributed to an operating crew error will be determined to be significant and assigned to category I.

B. Category II - HEDs Associated with Potential or Interactive Errors HEDs placed in category II may come from two sources:

• Those which degrade performance and increase the potential for error

-* * *Those which. have cumulative or interactive effects Each of these two is discussed below:

(l) It is the responsibility of the review team to judge the significance of HEDs *. In order to reduce the subjectivity of such a judgement, review team members will answer a series. of structured questions, designed to indicate the effects of the HED on operating r,rew perfQrmance. If it is judged that the HED degrades performance and if the effects of the HED are judged to be serious enough to cause or contribute to increasing potential i .. for operating crew error, the RED will be determined to be significant and assigned to Category II.

(2) Any HED which does not degrade performance, which does not increase the potential for operating crew error and does not have adverse safety consequences will be further analyzed to determine if it has any cumulative effects or any interactive effects with other HEDs. This determination will be based upon knowledge derived from the review of systems, subsystems, panels, components and functions/tasks, as well as from human performance references. If the HED is determined to have a cumulative or interactive effect it will be assigned to Category II.

,/,.-~.,\

i, Category III - HEDs: Associated with Low Probability Errors of Serious Consequence BEDs initially determined to have a low potential for error will be further analyzed by the review team, in terms of the *effect of an error on plant operational safety. HEDs with a low probability for error, but which could result in adverse conditio~s if such an error did occur, will be determined to be significant and assigned to Category III.

D. Category IV - Non-significant HEDs I-*

Any BED which has been analyzed and* determined neither to -increase the potential for causing or contribut~ng to an operating.crew error, nor L. ..

to have. adverse safety conse*quences, -nor. to have any cumulative or interactive effects will be assigned to Category IV.

. t*

Categories will be broken down into levels and each HED will be further analyzed for level determination. Levels wili be determined by:

• System importance to safety

• Severity of consequences 5.2 HED Resolution Recommendations for HED resolution will be proposed for all _HEDs.

Corrective actions will be developed using the resources contained in the DCRDR team and other specialists (e.g. Plant Engineering Department). The recommendations will take into account the impact of the correction on operating effectiveness, system safety, acceptability of design,_ consistency with control room characteristics and cost.

I ( \ 5.3 Schedule for Modification

"--~~)

The development of a schedule for modifications of HEDs is *dependent on HED categorization and PSE&G decision.

APPENDIX A PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT

iO  !

C')

• ~ ........:...: .. /

jO I*

.~

\Q

.* I I ;O 1 ,01.

~

I i<Ol:* - ---*

i

- . .,. -. ' ~ ... - * ,- !;"'

_ __......__.......t

!/'

..I 0

I

'* I.

I

~

---

(,,-J*-- .

\, - ..

- I -

• • -.-*--*1 1 - I

~

I

........_.11 ................ ...........,..~.,, ............,,. *

~

,_._~ - - - - . 0 - - -

.i.*aa. n:noou

,OOttne>nCX) CIS.UW Tl'nH7.I

~

-~

,. !.--.* r--* "T . '*

DOCuMENT RECEJ PT/DISTRIBUTION LOG Document Category: Project:

Date Document* Distribution Recall - Dates Received Identification Revision Description /Remark& To: Date I

Notice I Received I II i

I I

II I

I I

11' I I I I

I I

~

I

('** ...

\..: .*

r -

l.

[ APPENDIX C RESUMES

'L

.r* .

I

Role Assignments Public Service Electric and Gas Project Mana9ero*******e'****o***oe*c**oooeeG1*.*o*ec.**e&0ee-Lawrence F. Leitz*

Engineering Coo rd ina tor *** o * * * * * * * "" * * * * * *

• o * * * * * * * * * * * *

• Mil ton H. Allicock Operations Coordinator *******.*******.* *"* ************* *"* ***** James v. Bailey Design Coordinator ************* *"* ************************ James G. McFadden General Physics Corporation Projec.t Manager e 0 0 c 411. e ** e 0 e 0 QI 0 e ., O**. $. e. 0 . 6> e 0". e e* e G CD e fil c ~- .* c 4) e e Peter A. Doyle Project Director ***** ~ ************** "*******~*****o***"******Donald c. Burgy "Project Staff ******O*****************"*****Claudia Lempges (Human Factors)

............................. Frank B. Rogalla. (Human Factors)

• • • • • • • &***********************Richard Corfield (Operations)

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • *"* **** *"* ** Patrick casey (Operations)

/

., t LAWRENCE F. LEITZ

\ .... ~.. ~

. EDUCATION 1969 B.A. Mathematics, City University of.New York~ Queens

-College 1958 A.A.S. Electrical Technology, State University of New*York at Farmingdale EXPERIENCE 1970 - Present Public Service Electric and Gas Company Newark, New Jersey Senior Engineer - Engineering & Construction Department

• Job activities are related to the c9ntrols and instrumentation for both fossil and nuclear fuel generating stations. Prinicpal involvement *has been* associated with

. nuclear generation with an equal emphasis on both the primary and balance of plant systems.

Responsibilities inc_lude development of systems logic, preparation. of system descriptions, detail equipment specifications, estimates for material, labor, and scheduling.

Other responsibilities include the.organization, supervision and review of the duties *of other technical personnel within the discipline and the analysis and .

resoluticn of Production Department operating problems encountered on a daily or emergency basis. In addition, the *interfacing of project requirements with other in-house engineering disciplines, vendor representatives, as well as the solicitation of technical input from outside sources, i.e., professional socie~ies, architect engineers, etc.

1965 1970 Allied Chemical Corporation - Morristown, New Jersey Supervising Engineer -*Instrumentation Responsible for the supervision of the engineering a:s well as design for the instrumentation and control systems relative to various chemical processes, coke ovens, coal chemical recovery plants, and combustion systems.

Duties include the preparation of specifications, sub-contracts_, the layout of plot plans,' schematics, elementary and wiring drawings, installation, details, and panel

• drawings. In addition, bid evaluation, project coordination; scheduling, estimating and field.start-up supervision.

---*--* ***--*-******-**-**-~--*-* **- -*

1958 1965 Bailey Meter Company Wickliffe, Ohio Sales Engineer

• New York District sales representative for the* chemical industry and industrial contractors. Products included industrial instrumentation, control systems, and special purpose computers.

1960 - 1963 Application En~ineer Involved with the layout of systems and.instrumentation primarily for the power industry. Duties included acting as the engineering and commercial liason between the*

architect engineer and the Corporate Contract Engineering Department, plus technical back-up to the district Sales Department.

1959 - 1960 Service Engineer Start~up and maintenance service for new and existing

• installations. Dealt primarily with combustion systems for the utility and marine industries*.

1958 - 1959 Cadet Engineer Participant in a .nine (9) month formal. training program for industrial instrumentation and systems. The program included classroom theory and instruction in the' laboratory, shop and engineering department.

( . i;

• -*- \ ....._..,,,..

.r MILTON H. ALLICOCK EDUCATION 19.81 Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor Information Course. Public Service Electric and Gas Company 1980 Graduate course in Management Scienceo New Jersey Institute of Technology B.S., Electrical Engineering Technology New Jersey Institute of Technology 1976 A.A.S., Electronics Engineering Technology Essex County College 1965 ~ 1972 Boiler.Operator's Certificate Boiler House Practice Certificate Turbine Plant Operator's Certificateo City and Guilds of London Instit?te, London, England EXPERIENCE 1981 Essex County College

~djunct Instructor.- Engineering Department

.Instructed a course in DC Circuit Analysis

• 1981 - Present Public Service Electric and Gas Company Engineer - Controls-Division Makes desigr. changes to existing systems involving i **- instrumentation and controls, to maintain reliability and the safe operation of a Nuclear Generating Station. Other duties include selecting and purchasing equipment for the

• design changes. I am presently involved in making design

.changes of Sal~m Units 1 & 2 Control Room to satisfy Human Factors Guidelines. I am the Sponsor Engineer responsible for the Salem.Units fl and 2 Control Room Design Review.

{"'

'1980 - 1981 Public Service Eiectric and Gas Company I Associate Engineer - Controls Division Makes design changes to existing systems involving instrumentation controls, to maintain reliability and the safe operation of a Nuclear Generating Station. Other duties include selecting and purchasing equipment for the design changes. Established a computer.based equipment

/ list for Salem Nuclear Generating Station. Prepared a

\.... ___ j)

.response to Regulatory Guide 1.97 for Salem Unit t-2 *

.1978 - 1980 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Engineering Assistant - Controls Division Perform simpler duties pertaining to the redesign of existing systems in a Nuclear-Generating Station to maintain reliability and safe operation.

1977 - 1978 Public Service Electric and Gas Comoany Technical Helper - Kearny.Generating Station (Fossil)

Perform simpler types of Station Performance Department duties associated with the repair and maintenance of instruments and Boile~ .feed water testing.

1976 - 1977 Public Service Electric and Gas Comoany Utility Man - Kearny Generating Station (Fossil)

Helped* in the repair and maintenance of power plant .1

. I

'I

• equipment.

1971 - 1974 Guyana Bauxite-Company, Guyana,. south America Shift Supervisor - Generating Station (Fossil) '., ..

Was responsible for a shift consisting of ten men who were

.assigned to various manual operating positions.within the.

plant. Other duties included control room operation.

1964 - 1971. Guyana Bauxite Company," Guyana, South America Power.Plant Operator - Generating Station (Fossil)

.__/ .

Operated steam generators, turbo-gene~ators, power plant*

auxiliary equipment and water-treatment plunt which treated water for the steam generators as well as for domestic purposes.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION Member, Institute of Electrical and Electronics :J;:ngineers C-6

• - *-' -------- ----- ---**--- --- -- _, - -- - -- .. -****- .- - . **- .. --- -*. -*--** -*** ~**** -**. ----*.

JAMES V. BAILEY EDUCATION 1976 - Present Training for Senior Reactor Operator License for Salem Generating Station.

1972 Training for Reactor Operator License for Surry Generating Station.

1965 - 1971 Vario1Js schoolS associated with the u.s*. Navy Nuclear Power .

Program.*

1965 Franklin Senior High School, Reisterstown, Maryland.

EXPERIENCE

. 1980 - Present Public Service Electric and Gas Company Lead Engineer on the Operations Staff.

Primary Area of Responsibility Review and upgrading of station Emergency and Normal Operating Instructions.

I I

Review of station desgin changes *.

Cqmpany represenative to Westinghouse Owners Group, Procedured Subcommittee. This committee is responsible for the development and review of the Westinghouse Emergency Response Guidelines developed in response to NUREG-0737 Item I .C.l.

l -

. Representing the Westinghouse Owners Group and the Company on the combined owners group task force with INPO to

• develop a generic implementation plan for the industry to use in implementing the approved emergency response

\guidelines.

-.station representative for the development and. review of the Salem simulator.

Assistep the Engineering and Construction Department in the development of procedures to deal with the concerns raised by 10CFRSO Appendix R for safe shutdown of the station with

.a fire in the Relay Room.

~- "

• _.)

1979 - 1980 Temporarily assigned from the Training Department to work*

for the Chief Engineer. Primary Areas of Responsibility:

Investigate and resolve post TMI licensing* issues. Resolve various other licensing issues for Unit 2 operating license.

1977 - 1979 *Nuclear Training Specialist Primary Responsibilities:

Develop and implement* a training proqram.for NRC license candidates.

Develop and implement a requalification training proqram for licensed operators.

Develop training.system descriptions.

1975 - 19*77 Staff Assistant - Operating Departnient Trained for and obtained a Senior Reactor's Licnese (No.

2731) on Salem Generating Station.

Filled a licensed operator position from July 1976 until.

April. 1977 when the first class of reactor *operators obtained licenses.

Prepare~ station procedures.

1973 - 1975 LPL Technical Services, Inc.

Engineer Worked as a Startup and Test Engineer during phase l and 2*

startup t~sting on S_alem Unit 1.

1971 1973 Virginia Electric and Power Company Worked as an operator assigned to the Startup and Test Group during the phase l, 2 and 3 start:up test_ing for Surry Unit 1 & 2.

Trained for and received a Reactor Operator .License for Surry Unit l & 2 {No. 3196).

• 1965 - 1971 U.S. Navv I

-'t- *- -*-- .L._ - -*-* *-**

JAMES G. MCFADDEN EDUCATION 1956 Attended Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute

• Chemical Engineering - 1 year 1954 'Accredited Evening High School Repeated all high school math to satisfy New York State Board of Regents &

Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute 1952. International Correspondence School Mechanical Engineering - 1952/1954 1949 High School Graduate

• -** *COMPANY TRAINING COURSES I Fundamentals of the Critical Path Method of Planning and Scheduling

,... Supervisory Skills Program - Management Personnel

\

Quality Assurance Orientation for Engineers

~neral Employee Training - Nuclear Plants

- Radiation Worker Training - Salem i* BWR Technology - NUS Training Corpora*tion EXPERIENCE 1971 - Present Public Service Electric & Gas Company Assistant Chief Designer - Controls -11/80 to Present Senior Mechanical Designer 7/73 to 11/80 Squad Leader - Controls Mechanical 7/72 to 7/73 Designer - Controls Mechanical 9/71 to 7/72 i

• Assistant Chief Designer Controls Assigned to centrol review team for preliminary review of Salem Unit 1 and 2 Control Rooms prior to NRC and Essex

_corporation review. Accumulated and assembled all data, correspondence and drawings pertaining to design of Salem consoles and recorder panels. Interviewed operators to accumurate their experience of working in this Control Room. Assisted in preparation of report to document our findings based on this* review.

Assigned to assist Essex Corporation and NRC perform their Centro:-*. Room review of Salem Generating Station. Prepared the paperwork to implement fixes to Category 1 dis-crepancies found during this revie~.

/

Assigned to review team to examine-and approve all ongoing changes and or corrections to Salem Con.trol Rooms.

Assigned to provide design review and coordination between Salem 1 and. 2 Control Rooms and simulator. Revi*ew and approve all functional specifications s.ubmitted by E.A.I.

for simulator.

Assigned to Technical Support Center as Controls Design Representative during emergency response drills and/or accident. Prepared all technical artwork for system overviews at Chere, EOF and TSC. Solicited bids, evaluated quotations, placed orders and installed charts at each facility. Provide ongoing support to maintain charts in updated status .*

Assigned to Hope Creek to audit Bechtel's San Francisco home office productivity as it effects controls drawings and the instrument: index.

. Assigned to PSE&G Co. Computer Graphics Group as:

Supervisor. Responsible. for manpower, productivity, training, budgeting, purchasing, and development of new software and programs.*

Assigned to Salem as OCR (Design Change Request)

Coordinator. Responsible for scheduling, manP.Ower and preducti vi ty**

As Assistant C.hief Designer Controls, I am the functional head, in the absence of the. Chief Designer, of the Controls.

Group of the Engineering and Construction Department. The group consists of. SS men (4.Senior Designers; 4 Lead Designers, 33 Designers, Drafters and Detailers and 14 contract personnel}. We provide the engineering design and drafting of all controls documents from schematics to installation details for all control devices, pneumatic or electronic, for nuclear, fossil-and gas plants: new construction or wrevampw work. I am responsible for interviewing, hiring and evaluating personnel. I prepare all scheduling, logic input and manpower durations for our assigned work. Consult, advise and comment on controls portions of contractor supplier systems or packages.

1970 - 1971 Power Flow, Inc. (Contractor to PSE&G Co.)

Instrumentation Designer As Instrumentation Designer, was assigned to new.

construction project for Linden 4 (fossil) Generating Station. I wa~ responsible for th~ engineering, qesign and drafting of all controls documents from schematics to installation details. Provided assistance to sub-contractor for installation and calibration of instruments.

Assigned to nrevampw construction project for Bergen C-10

-*-*-------- - ***--------*-. ****------------- --------*-* -----**--- .... ----=-**-**-

~ .. ---*-.-----***--

(fossil) Generating Station: converting. from c'oal fired to gas. Responsible for the engineering, field locations, design and drafting of all controls documents from schema.tics thru installation details.

1969 ~ 1910 The M. w. Kellogg Company, Houston, Texas

-*~ Design Engineer As Design Engineer, was assigned to Construction r .. Department, Shell Chemical, Deer Park*, Texas, for all.

phases of controls. This included instrument enqineering, design, calibration, testing, startup, inspection and r--: purchasing of *pneumatic and electronic instruments, control panels, control valves and piping wiring materials. Was involved in planning and new design of additions to plant.

r*~

1963 - 1969 The M. w. Kellogg Company, New York, New York L Design Engineer As Design Engineer, was responsible for all design,

[*

• planning, studies, specifications, bid analysis, vendor selection*, purchasing, supervisio~ of drafting, both piping*

r-l __.

• and wiring,. rev.iew and approval of* vendor's drawing, inspection, functional testing and bid requotes of all control panels. Author of the Design Manual, Section 6,

('""\

entitled "Standard Instrument Control Panel Design Philosophy." Design Engineer. for .the control panel at L-* Shell Chemical Deer Parle Plant. This panel was subject* to I.S.A paper giv~n at 1969 Houston Symposium. Joined ISA r~ Committej SP60 "Control Center Standards" in 1969 and still I participate as a conunittee member.

l"

,. 1956 - 1963 Customline Control Panels, Inc., Linden, New Jersey Designer As D~signer, was responsible for all design, fabrication, specifications, bid analysis, quote preparation, inspection of steel, drafting; s~pervision of drafting, both piping and wiring, graphic presentations, nameplates, supervision and assistance to pipe fitters and electricians, inspection and functional testing, shipping and photographing of all control panels. Provided startup and istallation assis-tance for panels at client's job sites. Responsible for tr~~e show exhibiting. I became a senior member of I.S.A.

i

' April, 1963. Served on host conunittees and program conunitt~es for N.J. Section of I.S.A.

'\...

• f **

C-11

--- __ ..:_ ______ ,_ -----------~--------- *---------

19$*4 1956 The M. w. Kellogg Company 1

• New York, New York*

Designer As Designer, was involved in the following* phases of controls responsibility:

Wi~ing All the documents from schematics to purchasing of instruments and wiring material for electronic instruments, including temperature measurement, annuciator and* alarms

. and power wiring.

• Piping*- All the documents from process control diagrams,

- to installation details, to purchasing of instruments and piping materials, for pneumatic.instruments and pressure gages, *and steam tracing for freeze protection.

Control Panels - All the documents from panel fabrication

drawing to nameplate lists to purchasing of con.trol panel.

~

rnstrumentation Engineer.. - All the data sheets and purchase

• orders for instruments *.

1952 - 1954 o.s. Air Force, Selma, Alabama

[ Senior Draftsman As Senior Draftsman, Airman 2nd Class, was assigned to r-*

L~'

Training Materials Unit, Air Training Command.at Craig A.F.B., Selma, Alabama. Responsibilit_ies consisted of design of training aids for pilot schools throughout the o.s. We produced classroom trainers that exactly simulated

[ flight conditions including built-in malfunctions~

• 1950 - 1952 The M. w. Kellogg Company, New York, New York

("' Draftsman I

As Draftsman, I did the drafting of process control f

I diagrams for chemical and petroleilm plants, instrument piping arrangements, tubing tray routing, wiring_

schematics, wiring diagrams, conduit and cable arrange-ments, control panel arrangements, installation details of

.. instrument hook ups, heat tracing details, con~rol air piping arrangements, instrument lists, material take-off of

!. piping arid wiring from drawings.

... ~.

Joined Instrument Society of America

.f 1949 1950 L. 0. Koven, Jersey City, New Jersey Responsible for filing of tracings *and drawings. Operated blue print machine. *Distributed prints in office and shop. Did drafting of original drawings from ma~ked up prints and sketches of tanks, vessels, heaters and sheet metal sinks.

C-12

--~ -- ------- .. -*~ - *-*. -- -- .. - -- - . ---- -- --~*- -

PROFESSIONAL Professional Engineer - State of California Control AFFILIATIONS Systems No. CS003436 Senior Member - Instrument Society of America Member - SP60 Contro1 Centers Committee Instrument Society of America PUBLICATIONS Alworth, A., McFadden, J .G. "A Different Control. Panel. n Paper presented at the 1969 ISA Annual Conference and Exhibit, Octo.ber 27-30, 1969G, Section 6 "Standard Instrument Control Panel Design Philosophy" of M. w. Kellogg Company Instrument Design Manual.

PETER A. DOYLE EDUCATION 1978 - Present Ph.D. Candidate, Applied Experimental Psycholc)gy, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.

1977 M.A., Clinical Psychology, Loyola College 1974 B.A., Psychology, Towson State University EXPERIENCE 1980 - Present General Physics Corporation Staff Scientist, Human Factors Engineering Mr. Doyle works in the Human Factors Engineering Group at

• . General Physics. His areas of expertise include man-

.machine systems, simulation, human performance and stress

'measurement, experimental methodology and statistical analysis on computers. Mr. Doyle has assisted in an EPRI

.Technical Planning Study of communi.cations problems in '

nuclear power plants and has participated in control room reviews at the LaSalle, Zion, Surry, and ZimII!~r and. Clinton Nuclear Power Plants. He has also assisted in the development of a Containment Isolation Mimic for the Wm. H.

Zimmer Nuclear Power Plant and is presently the . project manager for on-going control room reviews at the Trojan and.

Sa-lem Nuclear Power Plan~s. He. is also providing human factors support in the development of Salem's Emergency Response Facilities. Mr. Doyle's training responsibilit~es have included teaching the subjects of stress and human performance a:s well as* systems analysis techniques, including task analysis. He has also participated in Shift Technical Advisor training, teaching a Behavioral Sciences course to STA candidates.

1979-1981 United States Army Research Institute Research Psychologist .

Mr. Doyle assisted in development of battle simulation and combat gaming techniques for use in training Army strategic commanders and their support groups. He also.did research pertaining to human performance capabilities in co_ntinuous combat using a computer simulation model.

1980 The Catholic Univers.itv of America*

Teaching Assistant Mr. Doyle worked as a teaching assistant for the Department of Psychology, teaching experimental theory, methodology and report writing to a graduate class in experimental methodology.

1979 Biometric Research Institute Consultant Mr. Doyle helped to select drug clinics for research with the narcotic antagonist naltrexone.

1979 Science Applications, Inc.

• *Research Assistant Mr. Doyle's duties included helping formulate objectives for modularized maintenance training courses for the Federal Aviat~on Administration. He also participated in design and construction of job expert review tests to validate selected training objectives and helped with statistical analysis of the results.

1978 The Catholic University of America Res.earch and Teaching Assistant Mre Doyle worked in the Human Performance Laboratory on I

• research concerning auditory pattern recognition. His duties included subject recruitment and data collection, I using a computer. He also worked as a psychology department teaching assistant, teaching experimental th~ory, methods and rep0rt writing to an undergraduate

. class in sensation and perception.

1974 1978 -Friends Medical Science* Research Center, Inc.

Research Assistant *and Counselor Mr**. Doyle worked in the Narcotic Clinic, recruiting and interviewing subjects and collecting data on the narcotic antagonist naltrexone. He also counseled parolees with histories of narcotic addiction.

1977 1978 Baltimore County Board of Education School Psychology Intern As a part-ti.me intern, Mr. Doyle worked on diagnostic evaluations of learning disabilities and emotional disorders of elementary and secondary school pupils.

1973 Spring Grove Hosoital Center Psychology Intern Mr. Doyle participated in the summer t~aining program. He tested patients and worked with them using behavior modification techniques.

C-15

--;---**-------**-------*---------- -----*---- *-**-* -

.;:.

• ,c,*

PUB LI.CATIONS Curran, _s. F., Doyle, P.A., and Sav~~e, c. "Maximizing Narcotic Antagonist (Naltrexone) Treatmen~ Through the Use of Behavioral Reinforcement." Paper presented at the National Drug Abuse Conference, San Francisco, California, 1977 ..

Doyle, P.A~ and Curran, S.F. "Delivery of Drug Abuse Treatment Services to Addicts in Community Corrections and Through Parole: A Status. Reporte" Paper presented at the National Drug Abuse Conference, Seattle, Washington, April, 1978.

Savage, C., Curran, S.F., and Doyle, P .. A* . "A.Naltrexone/

Placebo Comparison Investigation." .A Multicultural View of Drug Abuse; the Proceedings of the National Drug Abuse Conference of 1977. Edited by D. E. Smith, s. M. Anderson, M. Buxton, N. Gottlieb, w. Harvey and T. Chuny. Schenkman Publishing co., Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1978.

Burgy, D. c., Doyle, P.*A., Barsam, B. F., and Liddle, R. J. Applied Human Factors in Power Plant Design and Qperation. Columbia, MD1 General Physics Corporation, 1980 *.

Gaddy, C. D., Turney, J. R., Cohen, s. L., and Doyle, P. A.

r* ...

Behavorial Science and Human Factors in Power.Plant Applications.* Columbia, MD1 General Physics Corporation, 1980.

Topmiller, D. A. , Burgy, D. C., Roth, D. R. ;. Doyle, i?. A*

. and Espey, J. J. Survey and Analysis.of Communications Problems in Nuclear Power Plants (EPRI NP-2035) 501-5).

Electric Power Research Institute: Palo 1\l°to, CA: EPRI, September, 1981.

REPORTS "Preliminary Human Factors Engineering Recommendations for Near-Term Improvements of the Surry Nuclear Station Control Room" (Virginia Electric'& Power Company, GP-R-705).

Columbia, MD, General Physics Corporation, June 1980.

"Preliminary Human Factors Engineering Recommendations for Near-Term Improvements of the Zion Power Station Control Room" (Commonwealth Edison Company, GP-R-708). Columbia, MD, General Physics Corporation, June 1980.

"Swmnary of the LaSalle County Nuclear Generating Station Noise Report" (Commonwealth Edison Company, GP-R-13010).

General Physics Corporation, Columbia, MD, August 1980.

"Summary of the LaSalle County Nuclear Generating Station Lighting Survey" (Commonwealth Edison, *GP-R-13011).

General Physics Corporation, Columbia, MD, August 1980.

"Preliminary Assessment Human Factors Review of the William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station Control Roomn (Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, GP-R-13046). General Physics Corpo~ation, Columbia, MD, January 1981.

"Preliminary Human Factors Engineering Recommendations for

.Trojan Nuclear Power Plant" (Portland General Electric, GP-

-*. R-13106). General Physics Corporation,*Columbia, MD, September, 198le

• .UNPUBLISHED Doyle, P.A. "The Vicarious Emotional Responses of PAPERS Idiopathic and Neurotic Sociopathsa" Master's Thesis, Loyola College, Baltimore, MD, 1977.

Doyle, P.~. "Performance Effectiveness of Combat Troops:

An Overview of. the PERFECT Computer Model." o.s. Army

... Research Institute, Alexandria, ~, 1981.*

r -.

j l __.

,.I __ _

C-17

DONALD C. BURGY EDUCATION

• • • • 1978 - Present Ph.D. Candidate, Applied-Experimental Psychology, Catholic University _of America 1978 MeA., Applied-Experimental Psy~hology, Catholic University of America 1976 B.A., Psychology, Swarthmore College EXPERIENCE r .

1979 - Present General Physics Corporation Manager, Human Factors Engineering f *-*

_Human Factors Engineering and.Man-Machine Systems Design

)'

L,.

and Evaluation. Areas of human factors expertise include systems analysis, information processing, man-computer r***

interactions, performance evaluation, training systems, and speech/non-speech communications. Applied resea~ch back-ground includes an emphasis in experimental design and methods, multivariate statistical analysis, mini/micro computer applications. and software. psychology~-.

I Experience in nuclear power plant control room reviews I

1~ includes on-site field evaluations at North Anna, Surry, .

L_. Zion, LaSalle, Susquehanna (Advanced Control Room Design),

Zimmer, Shoreham and Trojan Stations. Evaluations have included the application of current NRC Human Factors guidelines and existing military standards to control room designs as well as field and laboratory experimentation to validate criteria used in design tradeoff analyses.

i

~- ..

Experience in utility research and development efforts has included two EPRI studies entitled (1) a Survey and Analysis of Communication *Problems in Nuclear Power Plants

( -- and (2) an Operability Design Review of Prototype Large Breeder Reactors. Methodology for collection and analysis of real-time field data in power pl~t control rooms was developed as part of the communications study.

Functions/Task analyses and operational seque_nce diagrams were generated as part of the operability design review that involved the evaluation of six breeder reactor designs

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

. -* ~-.

involved the development of task analysis formats and collection methodology for the Acoustic Subsystem. Team performance improvement and training enhancement were primary goals of the systems development effort.

1978 - 1979 Consultant.

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

1976 - 1978 Catholic University, Human Performance Laboratory Research Assistant Applied and basic research experimen-ts conducted on

,. -. *auditory signal classification of complex underwater i sounds. Research sponsored by the Human Factors L Engineering branch of the Office of Naval *Research.

Additional research and related areas included auditory and

[.* visual pattern* recognition, performance measurement and evaluation, multidimensio~al scaling, and computer-based systems for acoustic and experimental data analysis.

Computer experience involved programming. experimental events and subsequent data analysis on Digital Equipment  :**

Corporation PDP-8/e, PDP-11/34 .and DECSystem-10 Computers.

1975 1976 Eagleville Hospital- & Rehabilitation Center Research Assistant and Interviewer *

!ntervh-..;ed study participants *and* assisted in data processing for an.Alcohol Abuse Research Grant and coordinat~d all programming and.clerical needs for a

,...,..,, sub-study on Life *Stress Events. Skills in programming included .JCL, SPSS, PL/l, and FORTRAN on IBM 370/168 system_.

i

\

....... PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS Acoustical Society of America American Psychological. Association

.Human Factors Society .

National Conference on the Use of On-Line Computers in Psychology Psychometric Society Psychonomic Society

• Software Psychology Society Sigma XI

-~ AWARDS" 1978 Gr.ant-in-Aid of Research, National Sigma Xi

1978 Grant-in-Aid of Research, The Catholic Oniversity of America *Chapter of Sigma XI PUBLICATIONS r-: AND PAPERS Burgy, D.C. nHemispheric Asymmetries in the Perception of I Non-speech Sound Characteristics.n Unpublished master's I

thesis, The Catholic University of America, May 1978.

Howard, .J .H. Jr., and Burgy, D.C. nstructure Preserving

\.: Transformations in the Comparison. of Complex Steady-State Soundsn (Technical Report ONR-78-6). Washington, D.C., The.

Catholic University of America Human Performance

\\ .... Laboratory, December 1978.

Howard, J.H., Jr.,_ and Burgy, D.C. nselective and Non-selective Preparation Enhancement Effects of an Accessory Visual Stimulus on Auditory Reaction Time.n Unpublished manuscript, The Ca~holic University of America, 1977 e Howard, J.H., Jr., Burgy, D.C.7 and Ballas, J.A. "A Deglitching Circuit for the AA50 D/A Converter." Behavior 1[ Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1978, 1Q_ (6),

858-860.

I Howard, J.H., Jr._, Ballas, J.A., and Burgy, D~C.* "Feature Extraction and Dec.ision Processes in the Classification of Amplitude Modulated Noise Patternsn (Technical Report

,r . ONR-78-4). - Washington, D.C., The Catholic University of

\ ... American Human Performance Laboratory, July, 1978.

Topmiller, D. A., Burgy, D. c., Roth, D. R., Doyle, P.' A.,

and Espey, J. J. Survey and Analysis of Communications Problems in Nuclear Power Plants (EPRI NP 2035). Electric Power Research Institute; Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, September, 1981.

Burgy, D. c., Doyle, P. A~, Barsam, H. F., and Liddle, R.

J. Applied Human Factors in Power Plant Design and l .... Qperation. Columbia, MD; General Physics Corporation, 1980.

REPORTS nPreliminary Human Factors Engineering Recommendations for I. Near-Term Improvements of the Surry Nuclea.r Station Control

' *Room" (Virginia Electric & Power Company, GP-R-705).

Columbia, 'MD, General Physics Corporation, June, 1980.

"Preliminary Human Factors Engineering Recommendations for Near-Term Improvements of the Zion Power Station Control Room" (Commonwealth-Edison Company, GP-R-708). Columbia, MD, General Physics Corporation, June, 1980 "Human Factors Engineering Recommendations for. Near-Term Improvements of the Zimmer Nuclear Power Station Control Room" (Cincinnati Gas- and Electric Company), GP-R-13002). -

General Physics Corporation1 Columbia, MD, December, 1980e "Summary of the LaSalle County Nuclear Generating Station Noise-Report" (Commonwealth Edison Company GP-R-13010).

General Physics Corporation, Columbia,*MD, August, 1980.

"Summary of the LaSalle County Nuclear Generation Station Lighting Survey" (Commonwealth Edison GP-R-13011). General Physics Corporation, Columbi~, MD, August, 1980 *

. "Human Factors Engineering Considerations for Implementing a_ 'Green Board' at Zion. Nuclear Generating Station" (Commonwealth Edison GP~R-31008). Columbia, MD, August,-

1980.

• l'l_Program Plan: Task Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Crews" (USNRC Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research). Columbia, MD: General Physics Corporation, March, 1982.

"Human Factors Engineering *Meter Banding Study"

'(Commom:aalth Edison Company GP-R-13016). General Physics Corporation1 Columbia, MD, September, 1980.

I I --

C-21

• ~

CLAUDIA LEMEGES EDUCATION 1977 M.S., Education, State University College of New York at Buffalo 1975 B.S .. , Communication Disorders, State Univer.sity College of New York at Geneseo EXPERIENCE 1981-Present General Physics Corporation Staff Scientist Ms. Lempges is a member of the Human Factors Group. She is responsible for specifying education and training requirements and program development in this* area. She is currently working on a task analysis project of control.

room operating crews. On this project, she has b~en

• responsible for development of task analysis and data '

collection methodology. She will also be responsible for data collection. As part of the development _phase of this project, Ms. Lempges spent time at the Institute of Nuclear Power operations.* She observed all phases of their *Job and Task Analysis of Control Board Operators* project, ~rked as a member of their quality control review team, and participated in their development of a methodology for writing terminal learning objectives and job performance measures.

Ms. Lempges has been on- the review team for* a detailed control room design review. For this project, she developed an operating event selection methodology, as required by NUREG-Oi'.00. She has also reviewed instrumentation in a control.room for human engineering discrepancies and developed system functional descriptions for use in operator/system interface task analysis.

Ms. Lempges participated in the development of Instrumentation and Control Technician Certification

. program, based upon a job analysis, in conjunction with Limerick Training Center I&C instructors.*

1980-1981 Buffalo Public Schools Teacher Ms. Lempges taught learning disabled students *. she was I responsible for evaluation, writing and implementation of specific behavioral objectives and classroom planning.

1977-1980 Erie County Association for Retarded Children Speech Pathologist Ms. Lempges was responsible for evaluation, writing and implementation of s~cific behavioral objectives for communication programs for severely retarded studentso She was also responsible for inser.vice planning for s.taff and

• parents.

1977" Childrens Hospital Behavioral Sciences Dept. (Buffalo, NY}

Graduate Intern Ms. Lempges was responsible for data collection: planning and implementation of communication program for autistic children.

PUBLICATIONS Boland, L., Dewaters, J. and Lempges, c. Heritage School Communication Program: A Comprehensive Overview. Buffalo.,C--

NY: Erie County ~ssociation _for Retarded Children, 197.9.

• Christmam, M and Lemges, c. Integrated Speech and Gross Motor Program for Severe;y Retarded Students. Buffalo~ NY:

Erie County Associa.tion for Retarded Children, 1980

• c-23

FRANK B. ROGALLA EDUCATION 1980 - Present M.S .. Program, Human Factors Engineering Program,** University of Michigan 1973. B.A., Psychology, University of.Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut. Areas of specialization: Industrial and Experimental Psychology.

1972 B.S., Electrical Engineering, University of Connecticut.

Areas of specialization: Biomedical Instrumentation and Computer Science.

EXPERIENCE 1982 - Present General Physics Corporation Senior Engineer, Human Factors Engineering Mr. Rogalla is assisting in an EPRI-sponsored project investigating Internal Plant Operational Commun~cations. '

Be is also assisting in the Salem Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2 Detailed Control Room Desi.-gn Review.

'1960 - 1982 Combustion Engineering Corporation (C-E)

Senior Nuclear Engineer Instrumentation and Controls Engineering Section Human Factors Engineering duties included developing the informational man-machine interface using computer-based cathode ray tube (CRT) display systems. The systems involved were Accident Monitoring System, Critical Functions Monitoring System, Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS), Qualified Safety Parameter Display* System (QsPDS) and the Advanced Control Room Design, Nuplex 80.

,~* ..

The tasks involved designipg the display set organization by, developing a hierarchy and then structuring each display pag.e to supply the required system information using accepted human factors engineering principles and

. practices.

• A good;.xample of this effort was the production. of the Plant Monitoring System Supplementary Hierarchy for TVA.

The Supplementary Hierarchy added many innovations to existing CE display technology. Some examples are: a hierarchical structure_of safety syst~ms and operational systems, new symbols, symbol types, symbol behaviors, new display types and new ways of coding. Other tasks.involved the hardware design for computer-man interaction, A simulator instructor station control board and the design and review of controls and panels.

• • -. ---- -

• __ ... ----**-. ---*- --* ~----**-* *- _____ , __ _p ____ -*-* ------ .- --

In order to effectively accomplish these ta-sks it was necessary to take CE's Nuclear Power Plant Operators short Course with actual power*plant*simulator training and have extensive discussions with system designers and operational per.sonnel.

Mr. Rogalla Participated in CE'*s advanced accident monitoring and display systems design program that included workshops by noted authors, for example Rasmussen &

Goodstein*.

Mr. Rogallas' _efforts that were incorporated by the company as policy are: 1) Human Factors Engineering input to the Accident Monitoring. System. ISD-82-103. 2) Design of the page control module.

• ISD-80-1179. 3) Human factors considerations for I&CE products. ISD-81-661. 4) Standard List of engineering unit- abbreviations for NUPLEX 80. ISD-80-1169. 5) Standardization of. data status messages IS0-80-1168. .

1976 - 1980 Hartford Techology Consultants & State Reception S¥stems Owner, ope;-ator Mr. Rogalla provided electronic engineering services on a consultant basis~ He operated an electronic signal systems business,* designing, installing, and repairing intercom, sound systems, closed circuit television systems,_ and antenna systems for the private and public sector *.

• . ~ .

1973 1976 University of Conecticut Health Center Assistant Director 'of Physical Plant

• Mr. Rogalla provided human engineering ex:pertise*to accomplish the installation of viable electrical communications systems for the new Hospital -

Dental/Medical and Research Facility. The systems included radio* paging, nurse call, intercom-sound systems computer and closed circuit television systems *. The-task involved system conceptualization, specification writing and supervision of installation.. The task also involved providing training courses for-the operation and maintenance of the systems~

1973 I?ynamic Controls Corporation Test Engineer Mr. Rogalla provided the liaison* between the Engineering Department and the Electronic Production Department.

Duties included assisting in the final stages of design/development* and production of the U.S. Air Forces F-15 Eagle's armament system. The task involved the design of tests, testing and incorporation of changes. The task required. the ability to determine a problem area, have

- -------------*---. ------~- -

µ *~

,,/

tests taken, determine' a fix act~on with the engineering department# and then have the fix in~orporated and then retest.

1970 - 1973 University of Connecticut at Storrs Spec'ial Research Assistant Mr. Rogalla assisted in the design and development of biomedical instrumentation and instrumentation systems.

Solid state electronics were used for the measurement and monitoring of brain wa.ves (EEG's) and muscle signals.*

(EMG's) and (EKG's).

RICHARD A. CORFIELD

~UC~ION.

1981 B.S., Physics, University of the State.of New York*

1964 1967 Undergraduate Studies, Physics, *Pennsylvania State University 1963 - 1964 Naval Nuclear Power School and Prototype Training EXPERIENCE 198 l - Present General Physics Corporation*

Director, Columbia Power Services Mr. Corfield heads the Columbia Power Services department *

. He directs and coordinates the activities of the department including personnel recruiting and selecting, sales and client contacts, program developnent, plann_ing and cost control. His department provides on"'."si te training and training materials developnent programs and other operations support services to nuclear utility clients.

1978 - 1981 General Physics Corporation Manager, PWR Programs

' Mr. Corfield managed Pressurized Water Reactor training. He was in charge of systems training projects and programs, as well *as spec~alized training projects dealing with PWR power stations. He was responsible for the coordinat,ion, scheduling and cost control of training ma*terial

• preparati~n, on-site licensed* and non-licensed -training and training program development. He de"?eloped and presented courses in thermodynamics, heat transfer and fluid flow.

1977 - 1978 Gc:neral Physics Corporation

• -- Supervisor, Training Projects Mr. Corfield was responsible for supervising the writing and editing of Systems Training Manuals detailing the purpose, description, operation and design bases of the systems associated with PWR power.stations. He also conducted l -

academic and technology training and requalification training programs for various utilities.

L. .

1975 - 1977 Public Service Electric and Gas Company of New Jersey Nuclear Staff Assistant, Salem Generating Station r Mr. Corfield was a training instructor at Salem. He helped to develop training programs and materials, he trained reactor operator and senior reactor *operator candidates during both the initial NRC licensing and the

'*" requalification programs. He held a Senior Reactor Operator's License on the Salem Unit. "

1

'~*

\ .*..

• • --*--*----~----**-***-**

1971 1975 U.S. Naval Nuclear Power School Classroom Instructor, Bainbridge? Maryland Mr. Corfield was.. an instructor for prospective operators of Naval Nuclear Power Plants in the subjects of Reactor Plant Technology, Reactor Plant Operations, and Electrical Theory7 college level courses concerning the design, construction, operation and operational characteristics of reactor plant systems for energy transfer and reactor monitoring and control.

1967 - 1971 U.S. Navy Reactor Control Division Supervisor, Nuclear Submarine Program Mr., Corfield was in* charge of preventive and corrective maintenance for Instrumentation and Control equipnent for the nuclear plant. He supervised and trained personnel in the operation of all power plant equi:i;ment, watch standing practices, and techniques for containing and controlling ship's* casualties and rad~ological hazards.

1960 - 1967 U.S. Navy Reactor Operator/Technician Mr. Corfield attended various schools and training programs and served in the* electrical division aboard ship during* his first several year.s in the Navy.

CERTIFICATIONS/ASSOCIATIONS 1977 Senior Reactor Operator License NO. SOP-2975 Salem Nuclear Generating Station Member, American Nuclear Society

1. ~ , ~ I , .~

' 4 P~TRICK W. CASEY EDUCATION 1970 - 1974 U.S. Naval Nuclear Power Training Program 1978 Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Operator's License Class, Virginia Electric and Power Company EXPERIENCE 1981 - Present General Phvsics Corporation Manager, PWR Services Mr. Casey manages Pressurized Water Reactor Services. He is-in charge of operator training programs as well as specialized training projects dealing with PWR power stations. He is responsible for the coordination, scheduling and cost control of training material preparation, on-site licensed and non-licensed training and training program <;ieveloptnent;. He is' certified by General Physics as a _Senior Reactor Operator Instructor.

1980 - 1981 General Physics Corporation Senior Specialist At Gener~l Physics, Mr. Casey has participated as the senior instructor in several Reactor Operator/Senior Reactor Operator license courses and STA programs *. He has also served as the on-site project supervisor tor an accelerated Senior Re,actor Operator Is license course *.

1979 - 1980 General Physics Corporation Staff Training. Specialist Mr. Casey-prepared training materials for nuclear power plant operator license candidates-and technicians. Those materials included systems descr_iptions and training aids.

He also prepared course materials and instructed in on-site training programs.

1975 - 1979 Virginia Electric and ~ower Company License Reactor Operator, North Anna Power Station Mr. Casey participated as a control panel operator in the initial startup, testing, and day-to-day operation of North Anna Unit 1. He also w~ote plant operating, abnormal and emergent:Y procedures for the North Anna Station. Mr. Casey earned his Reactor Operator's License on North Anna Unit l.

c-29

197cf' 1974 U.S. Navy Nuclear Submarine Propulsion Plant Oi?erator - Electrical

.111. Operator

~

Mr. Casey was responsible for operating* and 'maintaining the shipboard electrical equipment aboard an SSBN type nuclear

~.'submarine. He also participated in the refueling, testing and startup of the new reactor core during overhaul.

- - --~.;. -

..3 i

I.

=.i