Advanced Instrumentation, Information,

and Control Systems Technologies

Control Room Modernization

Ron Boring, PhD
October 29, 2015

Light Water Reactor Sustainability R&D Program

A Programmatic Solution to Aging Plants

DOE Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program Charter

Assist u:li:es with safely extending the life of currently opera:ng plants
Original licenses were for 40 years
Extensions up to 60 or 80 years
Broad area focus, including human factors

Dr. Bruce Hallbert is pathway lead for four pilot projects relevant to human factors
in control rooms
Control room moderniza:on (PI: Ron Boring)
Control room benets (PI: Katya Le Blanc)
Computer based procedures (PI: Johanna Oxstrand)
Advanced outage control centers (PI: Shawn St. Germain)
Numerous other projects exist beyond control rooms
Human Systems Simulation Laboratory (HSSL)

Plant Models Installed: SONGS, Robinson, Harris, gPWR, Brunswick

Prototypes Built: TCS, CVCS, CBP, LOD

Crew Studies Run: 9

 HSSL: Operator-in-the-Loop Design Studies

our team builds prototypes of control room

upgrades that we then evaluate through
operator-in-the-loop studies
Robinson TCS Static Display Workshop

a real time run of a turbine startup. Scenario 2 was a real time run of an steam generator
L). Scenario 3 was a real time run of a runback, while Scenario 4 focused on minor faults.
nstructor directed the scenarios and instructed the operators to interact and behave as if
cting a routine training exercise. The plant simulator was running and provided the full
of the various scenarios during the first day (see Figure 5). These scenarios served as
es of the plant TCS as currently implemented. As previously mentioned, operators were
iar with the simulated plant and control room layout. However, they had minimal
nce using the touchscreen digital panel mimics. Nevertheless, that the operators quickly
anels, and anecdotally the SRO remarked at the conclusion of the first scenario how
s at how close it felt to the real plant. At the conclusion of each scenario run on the first
rs conducted a debriefing session with select reruns of certain steps within the scenarios.

Robinson Crew Running a Scenario on Day 1 with Observers (Left) on Scenarios Controlled
from the Simulator Instructor Station (Right).

ay, attendees were introduced to the new Tricon TCS hardware, logic, and functions by
gineer as well as the new Avid TCS interface by designers from Avid. Following the
obinson operators walked through the same four scenarios from Day One, this time with
static mockups of the new digital control system placed on revised panel mimics within
ulator (see Figure 4). The mockup DCS screens were made navigable using INLs
l for rapid prototyping on the glasstop simulator. The second day scenarios were
e due to the formative nature of the interface screens and not-yet-modeled discrepancies
Developing a Modernization Framework
Helping UCliCes Meet Regulatory Requirements for ModernizaCon
Human Factors Engineering Program Review Model, NUREG-0711
Table 3. NUREG-0711 Process Model with Added Steps Appropriate to Control Room Modernization.

Planning and Verification and Implementation

Design
Analysis Validation and Operation

HFE Program
Management

*New Process Articulated by INL

New Control
Operating
Panel Layout*
Experience
Review
Human-Machine
Interface Style
Baseline Usability Human Factors Design
Guide*
Evaluation* Verification and Implementation
Validation
Human-System
Baseline Human
Interface Design
Ergonomic Summative Performance
Assessment* Benchmark Monitoring
Formative
Evaluation*
Evaluation*
Staffing &
Qualification
Training Program
Development
Treatment of
Important Human
Actions

*Proposed additional activities by utility in support of control room modernization.

Utility Challenges with NUREG-0711
Its a Regulatory Document
It covers what the regulator needs to see as nal proof that the design works
It is not a prescrip:ve process for the u:lity
It is summa9ve, not forma9ve
Some key steps for u:li:es are not explicated
It Primarily Covers New Builds
Same process applies to upgrades, but many of the steps are already done at
exis:ng plants
U:li:es want a graded approachthe deltafor upgrades
Transi:oning to digital HSIs from analog I&C may require rethinking exis:ng
assump:ons
INL is Gathering and DocumenCng ModernizaCon Experience
Help u:lity conform to eec:ve human factors process
Help regulator to rene its guidance for ecient and safe upgrades
 Impacts: Develop First-of-a-Kind Design and
Evaluation Processes for Control Rooms Boring et al./ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2015) 000000 5

Table 1. Phases and types of evaluation in the GONUKE process.

Evaluation Phase

Post-
Pre-Formative Summative
Formative Summative
(Planning and (Verification
(Design1) (Implementation
Analysis1) and Validation1)
and Operation1)
[1] [2] [3] [4]
Expert Review Design Heuristic System Requalification
(Verification) Requirements Evaluation Validation against New
Review Standards
Evaluation Type

[5] [6] [7] [8]

User Study Baseline Usability Integrated Operator
(Validation) Evaluation Testing System Training
Validation
[9] [10] [11] [12]
Knowledge
Cognitive Operator Operator Operator
Elicitation
Walkthrough Feedback on Feedback on Experience
(Epistemiation)
(Task Analysis) Design Performance Reviews
1
Corresponding Phases in NUREG-0711.

1. Pre-Formative Verification: Completed prior to the design phase by expert review. At this phase, the verification
consists of expert input into the planning and analysis of the design. The human factors expert may review
design requirements and provide preliminary design recommendations. The human factors expert may also
formulate an HMI style guide to shape the subsequent design phase activities.
2. Formative Verification: Completed during the design phase by expert review. Typical for this type of evaluation
would be heuristic evaluation, which is an evaluation of the system against a pre-defined, simplified set of
characteristics such as a heuristic usability checklist [15,16].
3. Summative Verification: Completed after the design phase by expert review. Typical for this type of evaluation
would be a review against applicable standards like NUREG-0700 [17] or requirements like the HMI style guide.
4. Post-Summative Verification: Completed after deployment by expert review. This activity involves ongoing
maintenance of the system to applicable standards. Human factors standards continue to evolve over time as
knowledge about HMIs is refined and as new HMI technologies are invented. While the system may remain
essentially unchanged over long durations, it is advisable to be aware of the implications of changes in the
standards. Even where the system is grandfathered to an earlier standard, any future change to the system will
likely ultimately require conformance to current standards. A periodic review of changes to standards and
identification of gaps between the system and those standards can ensure that the system remains compliant and
that upgrades and updates are unencumbered by a standards compliance barrier.
5. Pre-Formative Validation: Completed prior to the design phase by user testing. At this phase, a baseline
Modernization Processes That Work
Harris SRO, Bob Stephenson, in His Own Words
This simulator allows us to evaluate our new turbine
control system and train operators before we modify
the plant. This is the only opportunity to work with the
new system on this scale and see how it will integrate
with other plant control systems. Based on what we
learn here, we can modify the design to further
improve plant safety and eciency prior to
implementa:on.
GeNng the Word Out
Published 18 DOE milestone reports on various processes for and ndings from
control room moderniza:on
Published 35 peer-reviewed publica:ons on control room moderniza:on
One paper recognized by Human Factors and Ergonomics Society as runner up
for best paper among 891 conference submissions
Research incorporated into recent EPRI 3002002770, Guidance for Developing a
Human Factors Engineering Program for an Opera9ng Nuclear Power Plant
HSSL in Summary
Accomplishments
Developed the HSSL into a fully func:onal research facility in less than 3 years
Developed a solid customer base
Ongoing work with Duke Energy, Southern Nuclear, Arizona Public Services,
and Pacic Gas and Electric on control room projects
Coopera:ve Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) with these
par:es, including signicant funds-in work for Duke Energy
Joint work with EPRI on guidance development
Developed a unique human factors capability
Documen:ng and developing a process and guidance to help U.S. nuclear
industry with human factors aspects of moderniza:on
Developing a prototyping plahorm to test upgrades prior to implementa:on
Building cri:cal human factors research competence
Developed interna:onal collabora:on on moderniza:on
Joint development eorts with Halden Reactor Project and Korea Atomic
Energy Research Ins:tute