us-apwr staffing and qualifications implementation planthe operations crew staffing for the us-apwr...

Staffing and Qualifications Implementation Plan MUAP-10008-NP (R4)

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.

US-APWR

Staffing and Qualifications Implementation Plan

May 2014

© 2010–2014 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Non-Proprietary Version



Revision History

Revision Date Page

(Section) Description

0 April 2010 All Original issued

1 December

2011 General Revised capitalization of section titles

Revised number of figures

p.v

(Abstract) Revised the third sentence to “The staffing analysis covers tasks performed by …” for response to RAI 725 (Question No. 18-102)

p.2 (Section 2.0)

Added new paragraph to end of the section for response to RAI 725 (Question No. 18-102)

p.4 (Section 4.1)

Added description about sources of data for response to RAI 725 (Question No. 18-98)

Revised “descries” to “describes” for response to RAI 725 (Question No. 18-105)

pp.5–6 (Section 4.2.1)

Revised “Shift Supervisor” to “Shift Manager” for response to RAI 792 (Question No. 18-140) (Overwrote the revision for response to RAI 725 (Question No. 18-105)

Added description about MCR Supervisor for response to RAI 792 (Question No. 18-140)

Revised description about Shift Technical Advisor for response to RAI 792 (Question No. 18-140)

Deleted “Shift Supervisor or” for response to RAI 792 (Question No. 18-140)

pp.6–7 (Section 4.2.1.1)

Revised section title for response to RAI 725 (Question No. 18-98)



Revision Date Page (Section) Description

1 (continued)

Revised description about minimum operator staffing roles for response to RAI 792 (Question No. 18-140)

Added two paragraphs about minimum staffing requirements for response to RAI 725 (Question No. 18-104)

Added description about maximum operating staff numbers for RAI 725 (Question No. 18-98)

pp.7–8 (Section 4.2.2)

Revised the first sentence under “Chemistry Technicians” to “Chemistry technicians monitor and maintain …” for response to RAI 725 (Question No. 18-105)

Revised the first sentence under “Engineering Support Personnel” to “Engineering support personnel contribute to ...” for response to RAI 725 (Question No. 18-105)

Revised the description of the last paragraph for response to RAI 725 (Question No. 18-101)

pp.14–15 (Section 4.4)

Added “performing tasks” in first paragraph for response to RAI 725 (Question No. 18-102)

Deleted “risk important” in first paragraph for response to RAI 725 (Question No. 18-102)

Added description to second bullet in second paragraph

Added “(expert panel)”

Added “Task”

Added “results”

p.17 (Section 4.4.4)

Revised section title

Added “(expert panel)”

Added “Task”

p.18 (Section 4.5)

Added description about results summary report




1 (continued)

Revised “Analysis report” to “results summary report”

Deleted a sentence of the section end

p.19 (Section 5.0)

Added Reference 5-14

Revised description of references

2

October

2012

All pages

Revised to incorporate comments by the NRC in March 2012 to keep consistency in technical description with DCD Chapter 18 (Reference 8-1) and MUAP-09019, MUAP-10009 (Reference 8-8), MUAP-10010 and MUAP-10012 (Reference 8-9)

3

June 2013

All pages

Complete rewrite Revised to align closely with NUREG-0711 order and format

4

May 2014

Page 1

(Section 1.0), Page 2



(Section 4.1, Section 4.1.1),

Page 9 through 10 (Section 4.1.2),

Page 13 (Section 4.2.3)


(Section 4.1.2), Page 11

(Section 4.2.1), Page 24

(Section 7.0)

Revised the numbers of references Editorial Correction




4

(continued)

Page 7

(Section 4.1)

Page 27 through 28 (Section 8.0)

Revised all associated descriptions, which were affected by MUAP−08014 withdrawal letter (UAP−HF−14023) Updated the revision numbers and issued dates of references



© 2010–2014 MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD.

All Rights Reserved. This document has been prepared by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (“MHI”) in connection with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) licensing review of MHI’s US-APWR nuclear power plant design. No right to disclose, use or copy any of the information in this document, other that by the NRC and its contractors in support of the licensing review of the US-APWR, is authorized without the express written permission of MHI.

This document contains technology information and intellectual property relating to the US−APWR and it is delivered to the NRC on the express condition that it not be disclosed, copied or reproduced in whole or in part, or used for the benefit of anyone other than MHI without the express written permission of MHI, except as set forth in the previous paragraph.

This document is protected by the laws of Japan, U.S. copyright law, international treaties and conventions, and the applicable laws of any country where it is being used.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. 16-5, Konan 2-chome, Minato-ku

Tokyo 108-8215 Japan



Abstract

This document provides the implementation plan (IP) for the US-APWR staffing and qualifications (S&Q) program element. The S&Q encompasses tasks performed by both licensed operating staff and non-licensed positions (e.g., maintenance and testing staff) directly related to plant safety. The Operations crew staffing for the US-APWR is based on the minimum staffing level design constraint, as defined in the Human Factors Engineering (HFE) Program Management Plan (PMP), which defines the minimum operating crew staffing for plant operating modes. To clarify this design constraint “plant operating modes” are defined as Technical Specification MODES 1 and 2, and plant stabilization after accidents. This constraint defines the minimum main control room (MCR) staff of one reactor operator (RO) and one senior reactor operator (SRO). The SRO serves as the MCR Supervisor and Shift Technical Advisor (STA). One additional SRO and one additional RO who are to be at the plant to accommodate abnormal design conditions, including conditions where the human-system interface system (HSIS) is degraded, supplement the minimum MCR staff. The staffing constraint for licensed operators complies with the requirements of 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.54(m). In addition, the minimum operating crew design constraint includes one additional person present at the facility during its operation with SRO or STA qualifications. During emergency conditions, this person will relieve the MCR Supervisor of either the supervisor or STA responsibilities. Multiple units of a co-located site can share this person, because he is not needed for immediate short term emergency actions (e.g., execution of procedures for immediate post trip actions). The minimum operations staffing design constraint for non-shutdown conditions is confirmed through the task analysis (TA) HFE program element. For shutdown modes, the TA defines the minimum operator staffing and qualifications requirements. The minimum operator staffing design constraint defined above for operating modes is not a constraint for shutdown modes. For all modes, the TA uses quantitative analytical methods to confirm or define the staffing, as described above, on an action-by-action and task-by-task basis. This S&Q IP confirms the minimum staffing design constraint for plant operating modes and the minimum staffing defined TA for shutdown modes based on an overall qualitative job assessment that compares this staff to the operating staff at predecessor U.S. four-loop pressurized-water reactor (PWR) plants. This evaluation considers US-APWR plant design differences and HSIS differences that would affect the overall job of plant operators. It also considers the predecessor role of operators in activities that may not be directly related to the actions and tasks evaluated in TA. The S&Q also evaluates staffing related issues previously identified in the operating experience review (OER) program element. In aggregate, the qualitative S&Q predecessor based evaluation method is diverse from the quantitative analytical methods employed in TA. The use of converging methods is commonly applied to HFE issues in the nuclear industry and other industries. Plant operations subject matter experts (SMEs), with support from HFE and US-APWR technology and systems SMEs, conduct the S&Q for the plant operating crew. Any problems



identified in the S&Q are documented as human engineering discrepancies (HEDs). HEDs are evaluated and resolved in the HSI design (HD) program element. Staffing levels and qualifications for non-operating positions begin with a baseline that reflects the staffing levels and qualifications of non-operations personnel at predecessor U.S. four-Loop PWR plants. The S&Q then examines the changes in US-APWR technology and plant system to determine any impact on the baseline. The S&Q also evaluates staffing related issues for non-operations positions previously identified in the OER program element. The S&Q for non-operations positions is conducted by SMEs who have conducted or managed the activities within the scope of these non-operations positions at currently operating U.S. four-loop PWRs, with support from HFE and US-APWR technology and systems SMEs. Since the S&Q defines the staffing for these positions to accommodate the US-APWR plant design, HEDs are not expected from this part of the S&Q program element. The results of the S&Q are used by the HD program element to design the US-APWR HSIS and local control stations to adequately support the operating crew. This IP also describes the requirements for documenting the results of the S&Q in a results summary report (ReSR). The ReSR serves to demonstrate that the S&Q was conducted in accordance with this IP, which is a requirement for inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) closure.



i

Table of Contents

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ ii Acronyms ................................................................................................................................ iii

1.0 PURPOSE.......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 SCOPE .............................................................................................................................. 2 3.0 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW ........................................................................................... 3

3.1 Operating Crew Staffing .............................................................................................. 3 3.2 Non-Operations Staffing ............................................................................................. 5 3.3 Staffing and Qualifications Outputs to Other Program Elements ................................. 5

3.3.1 Procedure Development ....................................................................................... 5 3.3.2 Training Program Development ............................................................................ 5 3.3.3 HSI Design ........................................................................................................... 6

4.0 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Staffing and Qualification Baselines ............................................................................ 7

4.1.1 Operating Crew Staffing Baseline ........................................................................ 7 4.1.2 Non-Operations Staff Baseline ............................................................................. 9

4.2 Operating Staff Baseline Input from other HFE Program Elements ........................... 11 4.2.1 Operating Experience Review ............................................................................ 11 4.2.2 Functional Requirements Analysis and Function Allocations .............................. 12 4.2.3 Task Analysis ..................................................................................................... 12 4.2.4 Human Reliability Analysis ................................................................................. 13 4.2.5 HSI Design ......................................................................................................... 14

4.3 Staffing and Qualifications Evaluation ....................................................................... 15 4.3.1 Operating Staff Evaluation ................................................................................. 15 4.3.2 Non-Operations Staff Evaluation ........................................................................ 19

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION TEAM ............................................................................................... 21 6.0 RESULTS SUMMARY REPORT CONTENTS ................................................................. 22 7.0 NUREG-0711 COMPLIANCE EVALUATION ................................................................... 24 8.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 27



ii

List of Tables

Table 4-1 Typical Staffing at Predecessor PWR Plants ......................................................... 10 Table 5-1 S&Q Implementation Summary ............................................................................. 21 Table 7-1 Compliance with NUREG-0711 ............................................................................. 24



iii

Acronyms

ANS American Nuclear Society

ANSI American National Standards Institute

AOP abnormal operating procedure

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DCD design control document

DIHA deterministically important human actions

EOP emergency operating procedure

FA function allocation

FRA functional requirements analysis

GOP general operating procedure

HD HSI design

HED human engineering discrepancy

HFE human factors engineering

HRA human reliability analysis

HSI human-system interface

HSIS human-system interface system

I&C instrumentation and control

IHA important human action

IP implementation plan

ISV integrated system validation

ITAAC inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria

MCR main control room

MHI Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.

NOP normal operating procedure

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

OER operating experience review

PMP program management plan

PRA probabilistic risk assessment

PWR pressurized-water reactor

ReSR results summary report

RIHA risk-important human action



iv

RO reactor operator

S&Q staffing and qualifications

SME subject matter expert

SRO senior reactor operator

STA shift technical advisor

TA task analysis

US, U.S. United States

US-APWR U.S. Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor

V&V verification and validation



1

1.0 PURPOSE This document describes the staffing and qualifications implementation plan (IP) for the US-APWR. The objective of the staffing and qualifications (S&Q) analysis is to determine systematically the numbers and qualifications of personnel required for safe and efficient plant operation for all operating conditions based on task and regulatory requirements. S&Q uses inputs from operating experience review (OER), functional requirements analysis and function allocation (FRA/FA), human reliability analysis (HRA) and task analysis (TA). The human-system interface (HSI) design program element uses the S&Q results to ensure the US-APWR human-system interface system (HSIS) and US-APWR local HSI accommodate the staffing and qualifications, which result from this program element. The verification and validation (V&V) program element uses the minimum staffing design constraint confirmed by S&Q for plant operating modes and the minimum staffing defined by S&Q for plant shutdown modes to establish the staffing for various integrated system validation (ISV) scenarios. The S&Q results are also used to develop plant personnel training programs and procedures used by plant personnel. Human engineering discrepancies (HEDs) generated during any program element, including those generated by S&Q, are tracked and resolved in accordance with the process defined in the human factors engineering (HFE) program management plan (PMP) (Reference 8-2). The S&Q program element conforms to the guidance and satisfies the acceptance criteria of NUREG-0711, Revision 2, “Human Factors Engineering Program Review Model,” Sections 2.4.1 and 6.4, issued February 2004 (Reference 8-15).



2

2.0 SCOPE The S&Q addresses the applicable guidance in NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants,” Sections 13.1.1–13.1.3 (Reference 8-19), along with the applicable requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.54, “Conditions of Licenses” (Reference 8-24). Conformance with the review criteria in NUREG-0711 (Reference 8-15) is summarized in Section 7.0 of this IP. The plant personnel whose staffing numbers and qualifications are defined by this S&Q include licensed control room operators as defined in 10 CFR 50.55 (Reference 8-14) and the following categories of personnel defined in 10 CFR 50.120 (Reference 8-25): • Non-licensed operators

• Shift supervisors and managers

• Shift technical advisor (STA)

• Instrumentation and control (I&C) technicians

• Electrical maintenance personnel

• Mechanical maintenance personnel

• Radiological protection technicians

• Chemistry technicians

• Engineering support personnel

In addition, the staffing numbers and qualifications are defined for any other plant personnel who perform tasks that are directly related to plant safety. The S&Q defines staffing numbers and qualifications for the full range of plant conditions including: • Normal operations, including startup, shutdown, and refueling

• Abnormal and emergency design basis conditions

• Beyond design basis conditions for which emergency procedures define a clear action path (although the operating crew will manage all beyond design basis conditions, limiting the S&Q to encompass events where emergency procedures define a clear action path establishes a reasonable boundary for the scope of the S&Q)

The S&Q encompasses the aggregate of tasks that make up a complete job for each of the personnel identified above. This includes operational tasks, plant maintenance tasks, and plant surveillance and testing, as may be applicable for any specific job position, as well as supporting activities, such as training and supervision, which affect personnel utilization for tasks directly related to plant safety. Personnel required for tasks directly related to plant safety are included in the scope of the analysis. In addition, the analysis confirms that the tasks performed by these personnel that are not directly related to plant safety do not cause an adverse effect on tasks directly related to plant safety.



3

3.0 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW

3.1 Operating Crew Staffing



4



5

3.2 Non-Operations Staffing

3.3 Staffing and Qualifications Outputs to Other Program Elements

3.3.1 Procedure Development

3.3.2 Training Program Development



6

3.3.3 HSI Design



7

4.0 METHODOLOGY

4.1 Staffing and Qualification Baselines

4.1.1 Operating Crew Staffing Baseline



8



9

4.1.2 Non-Operations Staff Baseline



10

Table 4-1 Typical Staffing at Predecessor PWR Plants



11

4.2 Operating Staff Baseline Input from other HFE Program Elements

4.2.1 Operating Experience Review



12

4.2.2 Functional Requirements Analysis and Function Allocations

4.2.3 Task Analysis



13

4.2.4 Human Reliability Analysis



14

4.2.5 HSI Design



15

4.3 Staffing and Qualifications Evaluation

4.3.1 Operating Staff Evaluation



16

4.3.1.1 Plant Conditions Selection



17

4.3.1.2 S&Q Evaluation Method



18



19

4.3.2 Non-Operations Staff Evaluation



20



21

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION TEAM The SMEs who conduct the S&Q program element are described in Section 4.0 above, and summarized in the following Table 5-1:

Table 5-1 S&Q Implementation Summary

Implementation Activity Section Subject Matter Expert OER reconfirmation to establish operating crew baseline

4.2.1 Plant operations HFE/HSI

OER evaluation to select plant events related to operator staffing for evaluation in S&Q

4.3.1.1 Plant operations

FRA evaluation to select high workload plant conditions with staff reduction, and low workload plant conditions, for evaluation in S&Q


HRA evaluation to select IHAs with staff reduction for evaluation in S&Q


TA evaluation to select high workload and low margin plant conditions with staff reduction for evaluation in S&Q


Additional plant conditions considered by SMEs to challenge the baseline operating crew


Evaluation of operating crew staffing baseline , including justification for staff reduction, identification of HEDs, and recommendations for HED resolutions

4.3.1.2 Plant operations (three)

Evaluation of predecessor plant to establish non-operating staffing baseline, including disciplines not identified in Section 2.0 that directly support plant safety

4.1.2 Plant owner SME for each disciplined identified

Non-operating staff baseline evaluation with consideration of plant design differences, and justification for staff adjustments

4.3.2 Plant owner SME and US−APWR SME for each disciplined identified in Section 4.1.2, HFE

Non-operating staff baseline evaluation with consideration of OER, including staff adjustments and final conclusion for US-APWR non-operating staff

4.3.2 Plant owner SME and US−APWR SME for each disciplined identified in Section 4.1.2, HFE

The SME qualifications are defined in HFE PMP, MUAP-09019 (Reference 8-2). In addition to the SMEs defined above, the S&Q program element relies on the resolution of all staffing related HEDs from previous program elements. A multidiscipline team, including a multidisciplinary Expert Panel as described in the HFE PMP, resolves HEDs.



22

6.0 RESULTS SUMMARY REPORT CONTENTS

All results of the S&Q program element are compiled in a ReSR. This report is used to demonstrate that the staffing numbers and qualifications of personnel required for safe and efficient plant operation of the US-APWR have been systematically determined in accordance with this IP. Demonstrating compliance to this IP, as documented through this ReSR, is a requirement of inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) closure defined in the US-APWR DCD Tier 1. The S&Q ReSR includes: (1) Each implementation team member’s name and SME position that they fulfill

(2) The S&Q results overview, which includes the principal findings of the HFE program

element

(3) The S&Q execution results, which include all details that demonstrate compliance to the methodology section of this IP. This includes the following: • The operator staffing baseline for all plant MODES used as the starting point for

the S&Q, including the sources of that baseline; these sources include the minimum staffing design constraint for operating modes, the staffing defined by HRA and TA for shutdown modes, resolution of any HEDs from OER, FRA/FA, HRA and TA that impact staffing, and the evaluation of the OER report to confirm US-APWR assumptions pertaining to staffing

• The plant conditions for which the baseline operating crew was evaluated, including the basis for selecting those conditions. This includes the following: – The specific scenarios from the OER

– The specific scenarios of high/low workload condition from the FRA/FA

– The specific IHAs

– The specific tasks of high workload and low time margin conditions from

the TA

• The design differences in the US-APWR plant and the design differences in the US−APWR HSI, compared to the predecessor, which were credited in the evaluation to facilitate any staffing reductions reflected in the baseline; for each plant condition, the role played by those features, or any other aspect of the US-APWR, in facilitating the staffing and qualification changes from predecessor plants, is documented

• HEDs for any plant conditions that the SMEs concluded cannot be managed by the baseline operating crew



23

• For conditions that can be managed, the SMEs document recommended changes, if any, to the current accepted industry job descriptions

• The assessment of acceptable low workload conditions, and HEDs for any unacceptable low workload conditions

• The non-operations staffing baseline and the source of the baseline, including the plant name and any special considerations used to establish the baseline

• The differences between the US-APWR and the predecessor, such as the digital I&C, that are credited for non-operations staffing or qualification changes. For each discipline, the role played by those features, or any other aspect of the US-APWR, in facilitating the staffing and qualification changes from the predecessor plant, is documented

• Adjustments to the non-operations staffing, as necessary, to address relevant OER issues

• The S&Q conclusion for the US-APWR non-operations personnel

• Dissenting opinions from SMEs regarding the S&Q conclusions (this is optional at the discretion of the SMEs)

• Any changes to the Methodology defined in this IP, including justification for those changes

(4) A conclusion that the S&Q program element has been conducted in accordance with the S&Q IP, and that (with consideration of resolutions for any HEDs generated by S&Q) the numbers and qualifications of personnel facilitate safe and efficient plant operation.



24

7.0 NUREG-0711 COMPLIANCE EVALUATION

This IP is in full compliance with NUREG-0711, Revision 2 (Reference 8-15). Table 7-1 indicates where each NUREG-0711 criterion is met in this IP.

Table 7-1 Compliance with NUREG-0711

Review Criteria Stated in NUREG-0711, Rev. 2 S&Q IP Section No., and paragraph

6.4 Review Criteria (1) Staffing and qualifications should address applicable guidance in

NUREG−0800 Section 13.1 and 10 CFR 50.54.

Section 2.0, paragraph 1 Note: NUREG/CR-6838 and NUREG-1791 are not applied because there is no exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(m)

(2) The staffing analysis should determine the number and background of personnel for the full range of plant conditions and tasks including operational tasks (normal, abnormal, and emergency), plant maintenance, and plant surveillance and testing. The scope of personnel that should be considered is identified in the HFE Program Management element (see Section 2.4.1, Criterion 5).

All of Section 4.1.1 and Section 4.1.2 Note: “background” as stated in this review criterion is stated as “qualifications” throughout this IP. Section 4.2.2, paragraph 1

(3) The staffing analysis should be iterative; that is, initial staffing goals should be reviewed and modified as the analyses associated with other elements are completed.

Section 4.2, including all of its subsections

(4) The basis for staffing and qualifications should be modified to address these issues:

• Operating Experience Review

- operational problems and strengths that resulted from staffing levels in predecessor systems

Section 4.2.1, paragraphs 2–3

- initial staffing goals and their bases including staffing levels of predecessor systems and a description of significant similarities and differences between predecessor and current systems

Section 4.2.1, paragraphs 1–3

- staffing considerations described in NRC Information Notice 95-48, "Results of Shift Staffing Study"

Section 4.2.1, paragraph 2

- staffing considerations described in NRC Information Notice 97-78, "Crediting of Operator Actions in Place of Automatic Actions and Modifications of Operator Actions, Including Response Times"


• Functional Requirements Analysis and Function Allocation

- mismatches between functions allocated to personnel and their qualifications

Section 3.1, paragraph 7, and Section 4.3.1.2, paragraph 4

- changes the roles of personnel due to plant system and HFE modifications

N/A (see Section 6.4 of HFE PMP, Reference 8-2)

• Task Analysis

- the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed for personnel tasks addressed by the task analysis

Section 4.2.3, bullet 1 in list after paragraph 2

- personnel response time and workload Section 4.2.3:, bullet 2 in list after paragraph 2; paragraph 4



25


- personnel communication and coordination, including interactions between them for diagnosis, planning, and control activities, and interactions between personnel for administrative, communications, and reporting activities

Section 4.2.5, bullet 4 Section 4.3.1.2, paragraph 4

- the job requirements that result from the sum of all tasks allocated to each individual both inside and outside the control room


- decreases in the ability of personnel to coordinate their work due to plant and HFE modifications

N/A (see Section 6.4 of HFE PMP, Reference 8-2)

- availability of personnel considering other activities that may be ongoing and for which operators may take on responsibilities outside the control room (e.g., fire brigade)


- actions identified in 10 CFR 50.47, NUREG-0654, and procedures to meet an initial accident response in key functional areas as identified in the emergency plan


- staffing considerations described by the application of ANSI/ANS 58.8-1994, "Time Response Design Criteria for Safety-Related Operator Actions"

Note: Time required to actually conduct the task is evaluated in the TA as described in Section 4.2.3

• Human Reliability Analysis

- the effect of overall staffing levels on plant safety and reliability Section 4.2.4, paragraph 1

- the effect of overall staffing levels and crew coordination for risk−important HAs


- the effect of overall staffing levels and the coordination of personnel on human errors associated with the use of advanced technology


• HSI Design

- staffing demands resulting from the locations and use (especially concurrent use) of controls and displays

Section 4.2.5, bullets 1 and 5

- coordinated actions between individuals Section 4.2.5, bullet 2

- decreases the availability or accessibility of information needed by personnel due to plant system and HFE modifications

Section 4.2.5, bullet 6

- the physical configuration of the control room and control consoles Section 4.2.5, bullet 3 Section 4.2.5, bullet 4 - the availability of plant information from individual workstations and

group-view interfaces • Procedure Development

- staffing demands resulting from requirements for concurrent use of multiple procedures

- personnel skills, knowledge, abilities, and authority identified in procedures

Section 4.2.3, paragraph 4 Section 4.3.1.2, paragraph 4

• Training Program Development - crew coordination concerns that are identified during the

development of training

Section 3.3.2, Section 4.3.1.2, paragraph 4



26


2.4.1 General HFE Program Goals and Scope (5) Applicable Plant Personnel - Plant personnel who should be addressed

by the HFE program include licensed control room operators as defined in 10 CFR Part 55 and the following categories of personnel defined by 10 CFR 50.120: nonlicensed operators, shift supervisor, shift technical advisor, instrument and control technician, electrical maintenance personnel, mechanical maintenance personnel, radiological protection technician, chemistry technician, and engineering support personnel. In addition, any other plant personnel who perform tasks that are directly related to plant safety should be addressed.

Section 2.0, paragraph 2



27

8.0 REFERENCES

8-1 Design Control Document for the US-APWR, Chapter 18, Human Factors Engineering, MUAP-DC018, Revision 4, MHI, August 2013

8-2 Human Factors Engineering Program Management Plan, MUAP-09019, Revision 4, MHI, May 2014

8-3 Operating Experience Review Implementation Plan, MUAP-13005, Revision 1, MHI, March 2014

8-4 Functional Requirements Analysis and Function Allocation Implementation Plan, MUAP−13007, Revision 1, MHI, March 2014

8-5 Task Analysis Implementation Plan, MUAP-13009, Revision 1, MHI, March 2014

8-6 Human Reliability Analysis Implementation Plan, MUAP-13014, Revision 0, MHI, July 2013

8-7 Deleted

8-8 Human-System Interface Design Implementation Plan, MUAP-10009, Revision 4, MHI, March 2014

8-9 Human Factors Verification and Validation Implementation Plan, MUAP-10012, Revision 4, MHI, March 2014

8-10 HFE Insights for Advanced Reactors Based Upon Operating Experience, NUREG/CR-6400, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1997

8-11 Results of Shift Staffing Study, Information Notice 95-48, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1995

8-12 Crediting of Operator Actions in Place of Automatic Actions and Modifications of Operator Actions, Including Response Times, Information Notice 97-78, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1997

8-13 The Commission’s Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift, 50 Federal Register 43621, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1985

8-14 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, “Conditions of Construction Permits, Early Site Permits, Combined Licenses, and Manufacturing Licenses,” Part 50.55, Chapter I, Title 10, “Energy”

8-15 Human Factors Engineering Program Review Model, NUREG-0711, Revision 2,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 2004



28

8-16 Selection, Qualification, and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants, ANSI/ANS-3.1, Revision 1, 1999

8-17 Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants, ANSI N18.7-1976/ANS-3.2

8-18 Time Response Design Criteria for Safety-Related Operator Actions, ANSI/ANS-58.8-1994 (R2008), 2008

8-19 Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-0800, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

8-20 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, “Operators’ Licenses,” Part 55, Chapter I, Title 10,

“Energy”

8-21 Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-0654, Revision 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 1980

8-22 Design Control Document for the US-APWR, Chapter 15, Transient and Accident Analyses, MUAP−DC015, Revision 4, MHI, August 2013

8-23 Design Control Document for the US-APWR, Chapter 19, Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Severe Accident Evaluation, MUAP-DC019, Revision 4, MHI, August 2013

8-24 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, “Conditions of Licenses,” Part 50.54, Chapter I, Title 10, “Energy”

8-25 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, “Training and Qualification Nuclear Power Plant Personnel,” Part 50.120, Chapter I, Title 10, “Energy”

8-26 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, “Emergency Plans,” Part 50.47, Chapter I, Title 10,

“Energy”

us-apwr staffing and qualifications implementation planthe operations crew staffing for the us-apwr...

Documents