ML20072B789
| ML20072B789 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1983 |
| From: | DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072B710 | List: |
| References | |
| PROC-830228-02, NUDOCS 8303070167 | |
| Download: ML20072B789 (12) | |
Text
. .
DUKE POWER COMPANY CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION VALIDATION OF EMERGENCY PROCEDURES 1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this procedure is to define the process to be used for validation of Operations Emergency Procedures.
2.0 REFERENCES
2.1 Emergency Ooerating Procedures Validation Guidelines - INPO November 29, 1982 DRAFT
3.0 DESCRIPTION
Validation is the process of ensuring that a trained operating shift can manage emergency conditions with the plant specific EP's. This can be further broken down to evaluate EP's on the basis of being useable and operationally correct where:
A useable EP provides sufficient and understandable information to the operator.
An operationally correct EP is compatible with existing plant hardware, plant responses and the normal operating shift.
The validation of EP's will be accomplished by two basic methods:
- 1) Control Room walk-through prior to EP implementation.
- 2) Fec.dback from actual performance during real emergency or simulation during training - after EP implementation.
The Control Room walk-through will be performed in two phases:
- 1) Step-By-Step Walk-Through of all EP's (1 Operator and no Observers)
- 2) Real-Time Walk-Through of Selected Scenarios (Operator (s) and Observers)
This arrangement will allow the validation process to be conducted in a manner which effectively uses available manpower.
8303070167 830228 PDR ADOCK 05000413 f A PDR
P g2 2 cf.5 B. Shall have ultimate responsibility to resolve any conflicts arising during the resolution of discrepancies in the verification process.
C. Shall have responsibility for performing the written correctness portion of the verification process.
D. Shall have responsibility for ensuring that the verification for technical accuracy is performed prior to implementation of a new or revised Emergency Procedure.
4.3 Manager of Nuclear Engineering A. Shall have responsibility for performing of the Technical Accuracy portion of the verification process.
5.0 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS None 6.0 VERIFICATION OF WRITTEN CORRECTNESS 6.1 Designation of Personnel
- The OEDD shall designate personnel as required to perform the verification for written correctness. The verifier should have an adequate knowledge of the procedures and be familiar with the Writer's Guide and should be a person other than the procedure developers.
6.2 Written Correctness Verification Phase A. Overall Procedure-Specific Review
- 1. The verifier will make a general review of the Emergency Procedure completing the Procedure - Specific Evaluation Criteria For Written Correctness (Attachment 1).
The verifier will record his comments for criteria not met on a copy of the procedure marked as the " VERIFICATION COPY". If no discrepancies are noted, Attachment 1 will , ,
document that the review did take place.
B. Step-by-Step Review
- 1. The verifier will then make a Step-by-Step review of the Emergency Procedure or reissue using the Step-Specific i
Evaluation Criteria For Written Correctness (Attachment 2).
He shall document by initialing beside each procedure step, the evaluation of each step, note and caution against the evaluation criteria. If no discrepancies are noted, then the verifier's initials should be recorded by each step number to document the Step-by-Step review and the criterion ;
can be checked off on Attachment 2. If any step fails to
"
- Ptg2 3 cf 5 meet a criterion, "N0" should be written on Attachment #2 beside the applicable criterion. The criterion which was not met should be indicated on the procedure copy.
C. Resolution l
The verifier shall forward the reviewed procedure with his comments to the procedure writer for resolution. The procedure writer will document his response (s) to the verifier's comments on the verified procedure copy. The writer may be able to resolve comments by justifying remarks or changing the procedure and documenting either path on the procedure. If a resolution cannot be reached by the verifier and writer, the OEDD or his designee will resolve the comment.
D. Documentation Flow Path The procedure writer will then forward the entire documentation package of the verifier's original comments, the resolutions of the comments and the revised Emergency Proc.edures to the OEDD or his designee. The documentation of :he verification process shall accompany the procedure for final approval. It shall thereafter be retained as a part of the procedure process record in Master File.
E. Procedure Changes All revisions to Emergency Procedures after implementation will be verified for written correctness as explained above.
7.0 VERIFICATION OF TECHNICAL ACCURACY 7.1 The Reactor Safety Area of Nuclear Engineering Services in the General Office will perform the verification of Emergency Procedures and changes to EP's for Technical Accuracy. This verification will be performed per applicable procedures under their control.
7.2 Designation of Personnel The Manager of Nuclear Engineering shall designate a Technical Verification Engineer (TVE) for performing the technical verification.
7.3 Determination of Need for Technical Varification The OEDD shall determine the need for technical verification for
~
1 each Emergency Procedure revision. Technical verification is !
required unless the revision consists of editorial changes only. l 1
7.4 Technical Verification Process The OEDD shall request performance of the technical verification by one of the following procedures:
- Ptg3 4 cf 5 A. Normal Procedure The OEDD shall transmit to the TVE a copy of the new or revised Emergency Procedure. The copy will clearly indicate the revised sections. A description of.the objective of the revision will be attached.- A requested completion date for the technical verification will be included.
B. Expedited Procedure
.For situations warranting an expedited technical verification, the OEDD shall initiate a request for verification to the TVE 4
by phone. The information necessary for the technical verifi-cation process will then be transmitted orally or telecopy.
~
.The results of the technical verification will then be returned s by phone and constitute the_necessary approval for implementa-tien of the revision. Formal documentation shall be undertaken shortly thereafter and completed'according to the normal procedure.
7.5 Resolution The TVE shall forward his comments to the' procedure writer for resolution. The procedure writer will document his response (s)
{ to the TVE's comments on appropriate documentat'on provided by
- the Reactor Safety Area's procedures. The writer may be able to resolve comments by justifying remarks or changing the procedure. If a resolution cannot be. reached by the reviewer and the writer, the OEDD will ensure comments are resolved.
7.6 Documentation _
The content of the Technical Verification for.each Emergency Procedure revision shall be maintained permanently by the TVE.
Appropriate documentation of the Technical Accuracy Verification will be provided to the Station to accompany the procedure for final approval and retained with the procedure in Maste'r File.
7.7 Contacts i
Nuclear Engineering - General Office TVE - All Stations G. O. Ext. Home Phone G. B. Swindlehurst (Gregg) 5176 366-1403
, TVE - First Alternate - McGuire and Catawba H. J. Lee, Jr. (Jacky) 7565 372-0316 TVE - Second Alternate - All Stations P. M. Abraham (P.M.) 4520 366-2898
~-- - - , - p -- - , - - e.- - ---
r . ,--
S
- y. .
. U{
u h- . : .
. ~ c' s -
Prge 5 of 5 i'^ , .
, . ,x a 7
- - c3. .
i M ~
TVE - Management - All Stations . i _f . _f ' m-
, G. O. Ext. ^ ,h_,.e'Pnener
\ y*
K. S. Canady (Ken) 4712 b 847-8336 ,
G. O. Telecopy 17th floor Wachovia <. , 8033 .. (Celifirmation'3280) ,
~
lith floor Wachovia'
..+
4508. (Con 2irmatioh'5427) w
. i ga'
- f s. .g g,, %
8.0 ATTACHMENTS es <1 s,
- s. s %
~
s +
% x ' .g e.(
yV; .y i
- ~ t
' ~
.*%- , T *. ; 1 >
N,
, N *O \
s \s ' v.
h J
!w t .,
3 %.
' *r ,< -
3,.
-a s < ,
Y
- . h C
Fb5 + m , h, i a \. I I . s s
% k 7 1 y h h k , g ,' 3 g % ~ 'et wS.( '
. ' \.'
,,4
- e.
t
\ , (. 4 %
- ',* 4 +,
, ;<- p ..
- 5 D s i
n t'
i
^
m 8' %
.]% %
1 t j l
g, er , <
g
- i ,I 4 k
+ -i <
ed , A#
4 O,
. s, p
& v r
g %s -
0 %
w' k
s 7
,\
\
A
..N._
i % .w s
'W
,g
- . _ , . * - - ~ - - - --ma + - - re **ee-*P- == *-1
sv ( ;. ,
. , i Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT 1 h
CHECKLIST FOR VALIDATION A. STEP BY STEP WALK-THROUGH Procedure
Title:
Procedure Number:
}. , ' Change Number: -
Reviewer:
Date:
I' Use the real Control Room, identical simulator, or photo mockup as appro-
. priate. Review the procedure for each of the criteria. if the procedure e
meets a criterion, place a check on the line provided. if a criterion is not met, write "no" on the line. Write "N/A" (not applicable) if a criterion does not apply.
Adequate Guidance
- 1. Each. step is necessary to the correct performance of the procedure.
- 2. Each step is written to the appropriate level cf detail. There are no extra or missing substeps.
- 3. Each step is located appropriately within the sequence of events.
- 4. Each step is concise, readable, and understandable.
s
- 5. There is no uncertainty or confusion as to which step to go to next.
Control Room Comoatability
- 6. Nomenclature used in the step matches control room or local labeling.
- 7. Controls, displays, and other equipment mentioned are available and located where specified.
1
. . l i
Page 2 of 2
- 8. Controls, displays are accessible / visible to the operator when they are required to be used in the procedure.
- 9. Descriptions in the procedure match actual units of measurement, engineering parameters, and functions of controls and displays.
Administrative Adequacy
_ 10. The procedure is bound and filed in such a manner to allow easy usage.
_ 11. The procedure can be performed using available contrel room communications.
- 12. The organization of the procedure is clear and understandable to the-operator:
- a. Step numbering system
- b. Divisions of text
- c. Different step levels
_ 13. Figures and tables within the procedure can be easily and accurately read.
4 e >,-, -w--
1 Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT 2 COMMENT RESOLUTION FORM DATE:
PROCEDURE NUMBER:
FROM:
DISCREPANCY:
1 TO:
DATE:
RESOLUTION:
Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 3 CHECKLIST FOR VALIDATION '
B. REAL-TIME WALK-THROUGH i
Procedure
Title:
Procedure Number:
Change Number:
Reviewer:
Date:
Use the simulator, real control room, or pt.oto mockup as appropriate. The operator is to walk and talk through the procedure explaining the sequence and' identifying the instrumentation used. Observers should compare the procedure to the checklist criteria. If a criterion is met, a check should be placed on the line provided. If a criterion is not met, "no" should be written on the line. If a criterion does not apply, "N/A" (not applicable) should be written on the line.
Adequate Guidance
- 1. The procedure provides proper guidance for actions. Steps contain [
all information necessary to complete tasks. !
- 2. No steps are missing. !
l
- 3. There are no unnecessary steps. ;
i ,
- 4. There is no confusion or uncertainty concerning required actions.
- 5. Each step of the procedure achieves the desired objective. ;
- 6. The procedure achieve:: the desired objective without deviation from steps of the procedure.
, . , , , , , . - , , ,. ,, ,,,_,yy.-- .y4,,..
Page 2 of 3 1
- 7. Action steps are written in the order in which tasks are actually performed.
Control Room Compatability
- 8. Limits and tolerances within the procedure are consistent with control room scales and understandable.
- 9. Where sequence of steps is not important, steps have been ordered so that a left to right, or top to bottom, flow can be followed along the control board.
_ 10. All necessary references and materials are available in the procedure or readily available in the control room.
i Procedure Flow
_ 11. Action steps are written in the order in which tasks are actually performed.
_ 12. The procedure is easy to follow and a smooth flow through the procedure is possible.
- 13. The procedure can be read quickly and understood easily.
i'
- 14. In time-dependent steps, the operator can obtain all necessary infor-mation and perform all necessary actions within the time allowed.
Personnel Comoatability
- _ 15. Minimum shift staffing is sufficient to carry out all procedural tas ks.
l
- j
Page 3 of 3 l
1
- 16. The procedure is in accordance with the leadership roles and divisions of responsibilities in the control room.
_ 17. Procedures do not require decisions or actions which are inconsistent with control room personnel training and experience.
_ 18. The procedure does not cause operators to be in one anothers way due to concurrent actions in the same location.
Administrative Adequacy
- 19. The procedure is writtan to adequately handle recurrent checks and steps.
i _ 20. Place keeping aids provided in the procedure are adequate.
- _ 21. Adequate workspace within the procedure for operator use is provided when necessary.
_ 22. Caution and note statements were noticed and observed.
4 I
O V $l:;rO= a <sn>O@k ' oQa$* ui my3 .
ys4>gTKmh A
)
<>r5> DOZ p'm m;<> x doz mo oD:0OmOc;x )
- ZCK2m#. U Q#q 1Em. -
OI>Zom ZEmmW" Z _"y 1Em.
3 O0mmW<mm" O>i. m " .
mimT - OEKGm O 9$= m W _ Oz C ZOy1y- Eg< O13myNOOEKmZ1m t
'u p
oy , e p t e a s e t )
y L P m s .
/ E t i r f e 'g n t h o e s
,l; -
r e '
e n t m r n a n c r o t i e e o w o n r i n w m m e i e d r e p u t e ( i l t m r p w u e c u i s t b a i a e q t e a c g e s g
a l T i
l t o e s r c i n e d l o s t s f i r a n i p n
. s s s f f g e i a r o R s s p t t t u f a r d v e i d e e i i i s a s - a a t t
. d o t m m m n t i e e n n c C A C S O O O I S D R R U I A
.s
'I: -'i' ,. ! !l ' , ;; l }l , 'l, i