ML20080N033
| ML20080N033 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 09/01/1983 |
| From: | Wald J CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080N016 | List: |
| References | |
| AD.NP.16, NUDOCS 8310040341 | |
| Download: ML20080N033 (73) | |
Text
7-
-- q I
o THE CINCINNATI GAS C ELECTRIC COMPANY WM. H. ZIMMEP. NUCLEAR POWER STATION NUCLEAR PRODUCTION DIRECTIVE EMERGENCY OROCEDURE GENERATION PROGRAM PROCEDURE NUMBER: AO.NP.16 REVISIGN: 00 OIRECT00 OPERATIONS CA: DATE: 9,!/ M (c c -d j/ (b)
MANAGEO, NPO: / _ _ _
CAT 5: .
8310040341 830930 PDR ADOCK 05000 F
(
~ ,
^
\
THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES PROCEDURES EMERGENCY __0ROCEDURE_ GENERATION _ PROGRAM 1*0 PURPOSE & SCOPE The purpose of this directive is to provide information that can be used by individuals involved with writing, reviewing, verifying or val idating emergency procedures. The Emercency Procedures Generation _Procram presents the method for the development of emergency procedures as follows:
I
- The process of translating the BWR Owner's Group Emergency Procedure Guidelines into action steps for the plant specific emergency procedure;
- Establishes a Writer's guioe for emergency procedures which incorporates
- human engineering principles to ensure readable and understandable procedures;
- Establishes a verification program to evaluate the emergency procedures for written correctness and technical accurecy;
- Establishes a validation program to evaluate usability and operational correctness; ,
- Describes the program to be used to train the operators in the use of the emergency procedures.
After approval of this directive, the entire emergency procedure shall be reviewed using this guidance. This revtew shall be conducted as the procedures are submitted for revision and is not retroactive. Once this total review is complete and subsequent revisions are submitted, onl y those changes need to be reviewed in accordance with this directive.
20 APPL IC ABIL ITY This guideline shall be used and referred to by writers, reviewers, verifiers and validators for all emergency procedures under the jurisdication of the Operations Division. This cuideline may be used during tne writing or review of otner station procedures.
llVI5!ON1_ MANUAL t_CHAPTE4 _ _I_ SUBJECT I NU"654 l l l 1 AD.ND.16 00 l NUCLEAR lADMINIS- IEMERGENCY OROCEDURESI lDRODUCTION lTRATIVE IWRITING GUIDELINE ITHIS LAST l0IRECTIVE 10IRECTIVES I loASE JAGE I I I i 1 l'
e THE CINCINNATI GAS C ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES PROCEDURES 3.0 QEFINITIQNS 3.1 gmercency procedure A g neric term used to identify the following types of procedures used in the Ooeration Division: .
Emergency Procedure Guidelines (EPG) l l, Energency Guideline Contingency (EGC)
EEergency Operating Procedure (EOP) l 32 Q3f i n.Ltisn_sf_ A.sti on Estg1_1 Lied in Qastatino proceduras
! Allow - to permit a stated condition to be achieved prior to proceeding, for example, " allow discharge pressure to stabilize".
l Availabl e - the system or sub-system is capable of performing its intended function.
l Check - visual observation of the designated parameter before
! initiating a required action.
l Close - to change the physical position of an electrical device i
so that it permits passage of electrical -current.
Closely Monitor - visual observation of the designated parameter as determined by the operator for early detection of parameter change.
l l Complete - to accomplish specified procedural requirements, for exampl e, "Compl ete valve check-of f l ist A".
i Concurrently - perform the designated actions in two or more procedures at the same time.
Confirm - observe the designated parameter, or equipment status to ensure specified requirements are met.
Continuous - the specified action goes on without interruption.
Control - to adjust or manipulate an apparatus to regulate a machanism.
Enter - to depart one procedure or section and go into the soecified procedure or section.
~~~~ ~
- O H 51_fASUAL ==__ ~~~1_]3((YEI~~~ 2 5USJECT I~EUO3FR l l l l l A9.NP.16 00 INUCLEAR lADMINIS- l EMERGENCY DROCEDURESI IPR 20UCTION ITRATIVE l WRITING GUIDELINE ITHIS LAST IDIRECTIVE l0IRECTIVES l iPAGE PAGE I i l 1 2 14 l
4 4
THE CINCINNATI GAS C ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES PROCEDURES Establ ish - to make arrangements for a stated condition, for example, " establish communicatior. with control room".
Frequent checks - visual observation of the designated parameter as determined by the operator.
Inadvertant - the operation of equipment or system due to an oversight or unplanned occ'urrence.
Initiate - to bring into use a piece of equipment, a mode of system opecation, or documentation. ,
Inspect - to measure, observe, or evaluate a feature or characteristic for comparison with specified limitsi methoos of inspection should be included, for example " visually inspect for leaks".
Maintain - to keep a parameter within established limits.
Misoperation - the incorrect operation of a system or suosystem. ,
Monitor - to observe a designated parameter to detect parameter change.
Open - to change the physical position of a mechanical device, such as valve or door, to the unobstructed position that permits '
access or flow, for example, "open valve ISP143", or prevents passage of electrical current.
Operable - the system or sub system is capable of performing its specified functions, necessary support systems are capable of performing their related support functions, and both normal anc emergency power (if applicaDie) are available.
Record - to document specified condition or characteristic, for ex ampl e , " record discharge pressure".
Report To - make the required contact by communication equipment or verbally, in person.
Restore - return a parameter, system or subsystem to it's normal state.
Secure - to remove from use a piece of equipment or a mode of system operation.
Set - to physically adjust to a specified value an adjustable f e ature, for example, " set diesel speed to . . . " rom".
REVISICMI 4ANUAL I CHAPTER _____1 SUBJECT I NyguE-}
l l l l AD.NP.16 OC l NUCLEAR lADMINIS- l EMERGENCY PRCCEDURESI loRCOUCTION ITRATIVE IWRITING GUIDELINE ITHIS LAST l0!RECTIVE l 0 I S.EC T I VE S I 13 AGE PAGE I I I I 3 l-l-
4 THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES PROCEDURES Shut - to change tne physical position of a mechanical device so that it prevents physical access or flow, for example, " Shut valve IFP142".
Stab ilize - to establish control of a parameter such that the coerator may increase, decrease or hold steady as directed.
Start - To originate motion of an electric or mechanical ' device directly or by remote control, for example, " start . . . pump".
Terminate - to out an end to or stop a mode of system operation.
Throttle - to control the flow of a fluid or vapor by adjusting the position of a valve or damper.
Trio - to manually activate a semi-automatic feature, for cxample, " trip breaker . . .".
Vent - to permit a gas or liquid confined under pressure to escape at a vent, for example, " vent . . . pump".
VGrify - to prove to be true, ex ac t , or accurate by cbservation of a condition or characteristic for comparis.on with an original or a procedureal requirement, for example, " verify disch,arge pressure".
4.0 RjSogNSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY 4.1 gmerggncy Procedure Writers, Reviewers 2_ Verifiers and 1311ddlers Indivicuals responsible for the initial draft, subsequent bevision and review of emergency procedures shall ensure the procedures mset the recuirements of this directive. They should review this directive to re-familiarize themselves witn its content prior to initiating a draft, revision or review of an emergency procedure.
Individual s assigned any of these responsibilities should hol d an NRC license or operator certification and have three (3) years of power plant experience of which two (2) years shall be nuclear power pl an t exoerience. One (1) of the two (2) years of nuclear experience shall be on the uni t.
42 lu2erintendent. agerations Division -
Respon s i bl e for ensuring the verification and val idation programs for emergency procedures is properly implemented including tne resolution of evaluation comments.
R{VIS!GM1_wANUAL I CHADT:4 1_50BJFCT I NUMSFR I l l l AO.NP.16
- 0) INUCLEAR IACMINIS- IEMERGENCY PROCEDURESI lDRODUCTION lTRATIVE l WRITING GUIDELINE ITHIS LAST l0IRECTIVE 10!RECTIVES l lPAGE DAGE I I I l 4 14
l s
THE CINCINNATI GAS C ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
. PROCEDURES 5 0 RECUIR EMENTS AND _ RECOMMEND ATIONS 51 Tec hnicgl_Guidel i nes The BWR Owner's Group Emergency Procedure Guidelines represent the transition.of engineering data derived from transient and accicent.
analysis'into information presented in such a way that it can ce used to write emergency procedures. These guidelines.are oriented so that emergency procedures written from them can be used by the operator to mitigate the consequences of an emergency without first having to diagnose the event causing the emergency. The guidel ines provide the emergency procedur'e writer with step-by-step information for transition from an emergency condition to one in which the reactor is stable, such as cold shutdown.
The BWR Owner's Group Emergency Procedure Guidelines are generic gu i del i nes. Sincejgeneric guicelines are used, justification needs to be documented on the assumpt' ion's used to adapt the generic guidelines to the plant specific emergency procecures.
wi th a description of how the pl ant procedures dif f er f rom the generic model. This is accomplished during the verification phase of the review for technical accuracy. .
52 gyarqency_ procedure Writer's Guide ,
- This section establishes how human engi,neering prir.ciples are to be applied when wr; ting and reviewing emergency procedures.
Reference 6 1, INPO's Emergency Operating Procedures Writing Guideline, provides detailed expl anation of each principl e, and guidance concerning the selection of the method used to implement each principl e with good and/or, ' poor exampl es of applicat ion.
Emergency procedure writers andg reviewe'rs shoul d consul t the I4PO -
document if the background inf ormation would be helpful in the application of the Emergency Procedure Writer's Guide requirements. The plant specific' Emergency Procedure Writer's Guide is included as Attachment 7 1.
As the procedure writer devel ops the emergency procedure f rom the generic BWR Owner's Group Emergency. Procedure Guideline -
justification shall be documented onithe assumptions usea to aco'pt' the guideline to the plant soecific orocedure on the Step Occumentation Sheet, Attachment 7 2. The Step Documentation Sheet 50ecifies the wording in the procridure and,'the wording in thi )
gu i del ine.
In addition, the procedure wri;ter shall justify the difference, if any.
The Step Docunentation Sheets shall be includeo in the procecur-e review package and maintained in Document Control.
EfM11123LI ANU AL_ LcuapTER ___LigggrJ t Nguggj,__ l
] AU.NP.lt. I t l I I 00 INUCLEAR lACMINIS- l EMERGENCY PROCEDURES l IDRODUCTION lTRATIVE l WRITING GUICELINE ITHIS LAST l0IRECTIVE 10!RECTIVES l. IPAGE : ACE I l l l 5 16
.~ _ . _ . . _ - __ _ _ _. _ _. _ . _ -. _ _
d THE CINCINNATI GAS C ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES DROCEDURES 5.3 gmstagngy_Prosegure ver ification The objective of this section is to determine that consistency has bo:n maintained between the SWR Owner's Group Emergency Procedure Guidel ines and the emergency procedures. This determination is c!do Oy evaluating the characteristics of the emergency procedure tCchnical accuracy, written correctness, and control room / plant hcrdware.
Tcchnical Accuracy addresses proper incorporation of the BWR Owner's Group Emergency Procedure Guidelines and plant hardware into the emergency orocedures.
Written Correctness addresses proper incorporation of information from the Emergency Procedure's Writers Guide, other station directives, commitments and the FSAR.
Control Room /Pl ant Hardware ensu res there is correspondence between procedures and controls, indications, alarms, etc., so the operator can oerform the stated action (s).
Peforence 6.5, INPO's Emergency C;; rating Procedure verification Gu i del ine, IN80 83-004, dated March 1983 provides detailed explanation of each principle used to develop the verification
' process. Emergency procedure reviewers should consult the INPO document if the background information would be helpfui in tne cpolication of the following requirements.
531 Preparation Phase A. Licensed or certified personnel designated by the Superintendent, Operations Division should conduct the comparative evaluation.
S. The most current revision to the 9WR Owner's Group Emergency Procedures Guide serves as ;ne source document. ~
Individuals assigned to complete a comparative evaluation should review and become f amil iar with tnis document.
5 3.2 Assessment Phase Ouring this phase, one licensed or certified ooerator can ce assigned to complete the Technical Accuracy review and the same individual or another licensed or certified individual may be assigned to complete the Wri tten Correctness and/or Control Room / Plant Haroware review. Use the Emergency orocedure Verification Forms (Attachment 7.3) to document the review.
R52111E31_jANUAL i CHAPTER 1_ SUBJECT __ f NtJuSED l l l l AO.No.16 0C INUCLEAR lA0 MINIS- l EMERGENCY PROCEDURES l lDRCDUCTION lT*ATIVE IWRITING GUIDELINE ITHIS LAST l DIRECTIVE l0IRECTIVES l lo13E PAGE I I i l 6 14
~
d THE CI'lCINNATI GAS C ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES PROCEDURES 1 A. Make a' general review of the emergency procedure using the procedure specific portion of the evaluation criterio (Attachment 7.4 and the source documents).
B. Indicate on Form #1 of the EOP Verification Forms (Attachment 7 3) that the evaluation was performed, by either checking the acceptable column or oy designating the appropriate discrepancy sheet, Form c3 of the Emergency Procedure Verification Forms (Attachment '.3), for any discrepancies identified.
C. Make a step-by-step review'of the emergency procedure using the step, caution, note-specific portion of the evaluation criteria and the source document.
D. Document for each step on Form #2 of the Emergency Procedure Verification Forms (Attachment 7.3) that the I comparative evaluation was performed. either by checking tne l acceptable discrepancy colur',or sheet Form by designating
- 3 of the Emergency the appropriate Procedure i
4 Verification Forms (Attachment 7.3), for an~v discreoancies 1 identified.
E. Complete Form 24 of the Emergency Procedure Verification Forms (Attachment 7 3) and forward to the Superint'endent, Operations Division.
533 Resolution Phase The Superintendent, Operations Division or his designee is responsible for resolving comments and conflicts between the source document, wr i ter's and/or evaluator's comments. Once these comments are resolved, the procedure snould be validated.
534 Socumentation Phase t
The Emergency Procedure Verification For95 (Attachment 7 3) shall ' be keot in Document Control with tne procedure revision package in accordance with AD.NP.06.
54 imergency orocedure val idation The emergency orocedure validation is performed to determine that the actions scecifiec in the procedure can be performed oy the ooerator to manage the emergency conditions effectively.
Validation evaluates the operator's ability to manage emergency concitions. This determination is made by evaluating the
-- .-_- - - - - - _ - - - - - = = _ _ - .,,.:.._--_ _ - - - - - _ - - - - -
REV!S!CN1_jANUAL,____ ,1 CHAPTER l SUBJECT I NUM9 t I i i ! a0.NP.16 00 INUCLEAR IADMINIS- l EMERGENCY ORCCECURESI lDRODUCTION lTRATIVE I wR ITIt,G GUIDELINE ITu!S LAST IDIRECTIVE IDISECTIVE5 I l2 AGE DAGE I I I I 7 1-
THE CINCINNATI GAS E ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES PROCEDURES cmcrgency procedures with regard to the validation princioles of uscbility and operational correctness.
Usability ensures the emergency procedures provide sufficient information that is understandable to the operator.
Operational Correctness ensures the procedures are compatible with plant responses, plant hardware and the shif t manpower.
Roforence 6 6 INPO's Emergency Operating Prococures Validation Guideline, INPO 83-006, dated draft June 1, 1983, provides d0teil ed expl anations of each principle used to develop the val idation process. Emergency procedure writers and reviewers shculd consult the INPO document i f background information would be helpful in the application of the following requirements.
5 4.1 To develop evaluation criteria to address the validation principle of usability, it is nelpful to divide the principle into two areas:
a level of detail
- understandability LEVEL OF DETAIL The goal of this evaluation is to determine that the emergency procedures contain sufficient information, consistent with training, for the.ooerator to manage emergency conditions in the plant. The level of detail in the emergency procedures is a balance between providing all the possible operating information and providing the minimum amount of needed operator information.
The Emergency Procedure Writers Guide addresses the desired level of detail, and now the emergency procedure users judgment on sufficiency i s needed.
UNDERSTANCABILITY The goal of this evaluation is to determine that the user comorehends the information presented in the emergency procedures.
- The emergency procedures have been written in accordance with the. Emergency procedure Writers Guide to facilitate the
- uncerstandtag of the written information. As part of the validat ~* arocess, the emergency procedure user is askea to
- evaluate how well they could compreheno the emergency procedure under emargency conditions.
5.11111251_312Mik _____1 E 'arsa __2_;gggggI _ 1_39w ea l l l l A3.NP.16 00 INUCLEAR lADMINIS- l EMERGENCY DROCEDURE51 12RCCUCTION ITRATIVE l WRITING GUI3ELINE 174I5 LAST 10!RECTIVE l0IRECTIVES l l CAGE PAGE I I I I 3 l'
,-~_ y , . , . . . - . , . . . . , . . _ , ,,,y,-_ , . , , , , _ . , _ . , _ _ , , . , . , , , . , . _ . , , . . _ , _ _ , _ . . _ . , . , , , . , ,.,,m..,_,_m.__, _ . _ , .. ~ , . __
THE CINCINNATI GAS C ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSI3IARY COMDANIES PROCEDURES
_ _ _ - =_ _ _
5.4 2 To develop evaluation criteria to a'ddress the validation principl e of Operational Correctness, it is helpful to divide the principle into two areas:
e plant compatibility e operator compatibility PLANT COMPATIBILITY The. goal of this evaluation is to determine that tne emergency procedures are compatible with plant hardware and responses.
The operator must be able to carry out the actions specified in the emergency procedures with existing olant hardware. In addition, if the plant responses during the transient are different than those which the emergency procedures lead the coerator to expect, the operator could lose confidence in the procedures correctness. Therefore, this area addresses whetner the technically accurate information in the emergency procedures is correct for operating the plant hardware during emergency conditions and whether the resulting' plant conditions seen by the operator are consistent with those expected from the directed operator actions of the emergency procedure,s.
OPERATOR COMPATIBILITY The goal of this evaluation is to determine that the energency procedures are compatible with the. shif t manning levels and policies.
The shift manning level must be adequate t6 comply witn the actions specified in the emergency procedures. In addition, the station's policies for individual operators' resoonsibilities and duties must not conflict with the actions specified in the emergency procedures. Therefore, this area addresses the abil ity of the shift manpower to perform the actions specified in the emergency orocedures.
5 4 3 The emergency procedures validation program process can ce described by the four aspects of preparation, assessment, resolution, and documentation.
11Xill251 5dEMik__ 1_ CHAPTER _____1.1MBdgCT ___ _1_2guBE4 l l l l AD.NP.le
'00 l NUCLEAR lADMINIS- IEMERGENCY PROCEOURESI lDRODUCTICN lTRATIVE IWRITING GUIDELINE ITHIS LAST l0IRECTIVE [ DIRECTIVES l IsaGE PaGE I l l l 9 14
.m_.
1 THC CINCINNATI GAS E ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES PROCEDURES PREPARATION preparation cmisists of selecting the appropriate transients, dotermining the resources available, selecting the validation Gothod,
- pl anning for the val idation method, developing the vclidation scenarios, and determining the use of evaluation criteria. The Superintendent, Operations Division should select the validation method and designate individuals to participate on the val idation team. The validation process should be completed by this team with one crew of operators, however the Superintendent of Operations may direct that additional crews pcrticipate in the validation process.
Whether emergency procedure validation is conducted prior to or subsequent to impl ementation, transients are selected for dcveloping scenarios which satisfy the scope of the validation boing performed.
In determining the resources available, the validation team can i group its resources under the categories of personnel, Gquipment, and time. Time usually dictates the availability of other resources. Equipment resources could include the control rcom, a control room simulator, a control room mock-up, pr classroom. Manpower resources could include licensed personnel cnd non-licensed personnel with technical speci al i t ies. It is important to remember that the wore technically experienceo operators may not necessarily provide the best insight into the content, structure, and usability of the emergency proceoure.
Although " seasoned" operators may be quite familiar with the smergency procedures, they may not recognize flaws, discrepancies, or have the same problems interpreting emergency procedures as less experienced operators or non-licensed
. personnel. -
The selection of one or more validation methods for the dssessment is dependent on the resources available at the time energency procedure validation is scheduled. There are four choices for validation methods: table-too method. walk-througn method, simulator method, and reference method.
I A. Table-Top ethod -A val idation method whereby pe,rsonnel explain and/or discuss procedure action steps in response to a scenario or as part of an actual industry operating experience review.
S. Walk-Through Method -A validation method whereby control room operators conduct a step-by-step enactment of their RevI5 ION 1 MANUAk __1_CHaoTER 1 ,,jgggg g _ _ ____1Jgg___
l l l l A3.NP.16 00 lNUOLEAR l A D."IN I S- lEWERGENCY PROCEDURES!
IDRCOUCTION lTRATIVE I WR ITING GL'IDEL INE ITHIS LAST l0!RECTIVE IDIRECTIVES I loAGE PAGE I I l l 10 14
e t
THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIO! ARY COMP ANIES PROCEDURES actions during a scenario for an observer / reviewer without carrying out actual control functions.
C. Simulator Method - A validation method whereoy control room operators perform control functions on simulated equipment during a scenario for an observer / review team.
D. Reference Method - A validation method whereby data developed in a BWROG Emergency Procedure Guideline validation program, or other similar program is referenced.
Once the val idation method has been sel ected, planning for the method must begin ( See Attachment 7.6 for details). Personnel and equipment resources required for the method must be scheduled. For example, to support the simulator validation method a simulator (equipment) must be available along with the operators and evaluators (personnel).
A scenario is the written description of a transient useo to exercise the emergency procedure for any method during
' assessment. It provides the background, prerequisite conditions, and the proper secuence of realistic plant symptoms and responses. The scenario should guide the emergency-procedure user through a designated evaluation path so that evaluation criteria can be addressed. It will vary *in l ength, complexity, and style depending on the validation method useo.
i For example, the scenario should be more detailed for a table-top validation method than for a simulator validation method in order to provide the operator with a realistic mental picture of the system status.
Eval uation cri teria are needed to control and direct the assessment. Once developed, the evaluation criteria can be used in many ways by the personnel conducting the performance eval uat ion . The evaluation criteria can be tailored to either an observation or debriefing form.
ASSESSMENT Ouring assessment, operator performance errors are detected as a validation method or combination of validation methods is performed. The operator performance errors are then used to i identi fy di screcancies in the emergency procedures. This aspect of the program process onl y identifies discrepancies and does not classify them as f avorable or unf avoracle. Classification of the discrepancies occurs during resolution.
REVIS GN1 WANUAL I CHADTER_____I_ _SU3 JECT _ 1_NU"SE1 l l l l AD.N3 16 00 l NUCLEAR lADMINIS- l EMERGENCY OROCEDURESI lPRCOUCTION lTRATIVE l WRITING GUIDELINE ITHIS LAST l DIRECTIVE l DIRECTIVES I loAGE PAGE l l l I 11 l'
l THE CINCINNATI GAS C ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES PROCEDURES j j
l Certain general actions are applicable to the assessment rogardless of the method used. The observer / review team's leader should review the responsibilities of each team member.
Some individuals may be observers and data recorders, while others may be support equipment operators. All observer / review team personnel should be f amiliar with the overall format and scquence for conducting the assessment. If feasible, they should perform a " dry-run" of the assessment and use an abbreviated form of the scenario (s) if any is available. If the toam has questions concerning use of either the observation or dobriefing forms, the questions should be clarified. If vid'otace e is used, coordination with the video crew should be finalized at this time. -
Sofore starting the assessment, ooerators taking part should be briefed. Answers should be provided to the following questions: )
- What are the objectives of the assessment?
e How will the assessment be conducted?
e What will the operators be required to do?
The observer / review personnel should be introduced to the operators, and their roles during the assessment should be expl a i ned. The use of observation and debriefing forms, Attachment 7.7, should be reviewed with the operators. This briefing shculd acquaint the operators with the observer / review team and should f amiliarize the operators with the overall objective (s) and technique of the assessment.
RES0tuTION In resolution, the discrepancies identified during assessment are classified as either favorable or unfavorable. For discrepancies that are determined to be favorable, no resolution is required. Discrepancies that are determined to be unfavoraole should be evaluated for their apparent cause with relationship to the personnel, training, plant design, or emergency procedure. Solutions can then be determined for each discrepancy and a resolution from the possible solutions is selected to remedy the discrepancy. For example, if the operating crew felt that the emergency procedures were not detail ed enough, possible solutions might be either to increase the level of detail in tne emergency procedure or to increase the training emohasis on the indicated steps with an evaluation to ensure the operator does not need additional procedure detail. A resolution would be chosen f rom these two possible R{31}ipjl, MANUAL ,,,,,,1 CHAPTER 1,5U3 JECT __ 1 NUMBER l l I I AD.NP.16 0] l NUCLEAR lA0 MINIS- l EMERGENCY DROCEDURESI lPRCDUCTION lTRATIVE lhRITING GUIDELINE ITHIS LAST 10!RECfivE 10I8ECTIVES l lPAGE PAGE l l l l 12 14
1 THE CINCINNATI GAS C ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES DROCEDURES solutions. The review sheets, verification and validation forms shall be forwarded to the Station Review Board and Plant Manager for final review and approval in accordance with AD.NP.06, {
Review, Approval, Issue, Revision, and Usage of Impl ementing l Procedures.
l 00CUMENTATION Occumentation provides a traceable history of the validation which can be referenced. The Emergency Procedure Validation Forms (Attachment 7 5) shall be kept in Document Control with the procedure revision package in accordance with A0.NP.06.
5.5 (icensed_ggerator Trainino Licensed operators shall receive training on the use of emergency procedures prior to their implementation. Proposed revisions to the emergency procedures are presented to the operators through an established training program, the Licensed Operator Recual ification Program. This training plan consists of several j phases. Training prior to implementation should consist of one I (1) or more of the following phases.
Phase 1 Each licensed operator receives a copy of the revised plant specific procedure (s) for their personal use.
Phase 2 Each licensed operator receives classroom training on the use of and basis for each plant specific procedure.
Included are written and/or oral examinations.
Phasg_3 Each licensed operator receives training at a BWR simulator utilizing the Zimmer procedures. This provides the opportunity to slowl y progress through a casual ty by " freezing" the simulator to allow the operator to verify the correct procedure is being used and that the correct step is being impl emented. In addition, a casualty or scenario can be repeated if necessary.
Ahll2_4 Each licensed operator receives Zimmer control room training in the use of the olant specific procedures during scheduled drill,. These drill s simulate plant specific C35ual ties and require the operators to implement the proper procedure to restore the plant to a safe condition. Orill performance is evaluated by supervisors in the Operations and/or Training Divisions.
REVillE31_ MANUAL __ 1 CHADTER I_SU3 JECT I NU*dE; l l l l AD.NP.le 00 l NUCLEAR lADMINIS- l EMERGENCY PROCEDURES l lDRODUCTION lTRATIVE l WRITING GUIDELINE ITHIS LAST l0IRECTIVE 10IRECTIVES I lPAGE PAGE I I I I 13 14
THE CINCINNATI GAS C ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES PROCEDURES 6 0 REFERf E 11 -
61 INPO's Emergency Operating Procedures Writing Guideline, INPO 82-017, dated Jul y 1982.
62 NUREG-0899, Guidelines for the Preparation of Emergency
- Operating Procedures, Revision 5, dated August, 1982.
63 Preliminary Assessment Human Factors Review of the Wm. H.
Zicmer Nuclear power Station Control Room submitted by CGCE in rosponse to Task Action Pl an Item I.O.1, Control Room Review dated Fcbruary 4, 1981.
s.4 Response to the NRC's Human Factors Engineering Control Room Ossign Review /Awdit Report, Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Submitted by CGCE in response to Task Action Plan Item I.O.1, Control Room Review dated Hay 1, 1981. -
65 INPO's Emergency Operating Procedures Verification Guideline, INPO 03-004, dated March, 1983.
6.T INPO's Emergency Operating Procedures Validation Guideline, INPO 83-006, dated Draft June 1, 1983.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS 7.1 Emergency Procedures' driter's Guide 7.2 Step Documentation Sheet 7 3 Emergency Procedure Verification Forms 7.4 Emergency Procedure Verification Evaluation Criteria 7.5 Emergency Procedure Validation Forms 7.6 Emergency Procedure Validation Methods 7.7 Emergency Procedure Validation Evaluation Criteria i
l REVISTO11 MANUAL ______1 CHA0TER 1_ SUBJECT I NUMBER l l l l AD.NP.16 1 00 INUCLEAR lA0 MINIS- IEMERGENCY PROCEDURES l lPRCOUCTION ITRATIVE l WRITING GUIDELINE ITHIS LAST l 3ID ECTIVE IDIRECTIVES I IPAGE DAGE I i l 1 14 14
1 EMERGENCY PROCEDURE WRITER'S GUIDE
~
e t
ATTACHMENT 7 1 AD.NP.16 REV.00
, INDEX P&g3 Item 1 5.1 Procedure Identification Information 1 5.2 Procedure Title 2 5.3 Purpose 2 5.4 Identification of Procedure Revisions 2 5.5 Page Identification Information 2 5.6 Instruction Format 2 5.7 Entry Conditions or Symptoms 2 5.8 Written Operator Instructions -
l 6 5.9 Step Numbering and Indentation 7 5 10 Checkoff Provisions 7 5.11 Step Sequence Information 7 5.12 Use of Action verbs j 7 5.13 Plant Instrumentation Values 7 5 14 Conditional Statements and Logic Sequences 8 5.15 Cautions l 9 5 16 Notes 9 5.17 Calculations 9 5.18 Methods of Emphasis 10 5.19 Referencing and Branching -
11 5.20 Identification of Equipment, Controls, and Displays j 11 5.21 Location Information l 11 5.22 Operator Aids l
12 5 23 Use of Foldout Pages 12 5.24 Use of Oversized Pages 12 5 25 Use of Reduced Pages 12 5.26 Reproduction i
l
! ATTACHMENT 7 1 AD.NP.16 REV.00
1,2 5.27 Cccputor-Oriven Operetcr Aids 12 5 28 Grammer 14 5.29 Page Margins 15 5 30 Printed Qualitv 4
ATTACHMENT 7.1 AD.NP.16 REV.00
Pcg3 1 Of __11__
Emergency Procedure Writer's Guide 1.0 PuRPg15 The purpose of this guideline is to provide information that can ba used by a orocedure writer in writing or reviewing emergency procedures. This guideline presents human factors principles.
coplicable to emergency procedures which will help ensure readable cnd understandable procedures for emergency conditions.
2 0 APP (TCABILITY This guideline shall be used and referred to by writers and roviewers for all emergency procedures under the jurisdication of tha Operations Division. This guideline may be used during the writing or review of other station procedures.
3 0 DEFINITIONS Ses definitions in section 3 0 of this directive.
4.0 RESPONStalkiTY _A M2_AUTHQRITY 41 Emeragncy procedure Mg11ggi_and Revieggri Individual s responsible for the initial draft, subsequent revision and review of emergency procedures shall ensure the procedures moot the requirements of this directive. They should revi,ew this directive to re-familiarize themselves with its content prior to initiating a draft, revision or review of an emergency procedure.
5.0 RECOMMEN0ATIONS AND REgyIREMENTS
- 5. L ' procedure Identification __Informatign Provide information on the cover sheet or the first page of the procedure that identifies the procedure, it's date of issue, current revision, and its approval. This information shall conform to the requirements of AD.NP.04, Station Procedures. The designation and numbering of emergency procedures shall be done in accordance with OS.NP.01, Station Operations, section 5 1 9.
52 Procedure Title Make the Orocedure title snort and descriptive enough to oermit the operator to easily identify the procedure and the emergency condition for which the procedure is applicable. Where possible include <ey words that provide the scope of the procedure.
ATTACHMENT 7.1 AD.NP.16 REV.00
. Pego __1__ of 15 5.3 EMEE212 It is better to include the purpose in the title. If the scope or purposo cannot be suf ficiently described by the title, the scope or purpose statement may be presented prior to the operator action steps to provide overall introduction to the steps that follow.
54 Iggnij,F,15311on oF PI2E1duft R#Y111201 Mark revisions to a procedure text so that the user can readily identify the location of the changes. The method used for identi fying procedure revisions is the placement of a vertical bar in the page on the left hand margin alongside the change. Ensure j there is adequate margin for the vertical bar. Mark only the changes associated with the current revision. Delete the markings from changes associated with previous revisions.
55 Egge_Ident'Ficati2n Information Provide information on gggh page of the procedure that will enable the operator to identify the procedure to determine whether any pages are out of order or missing, to determine its applicability to the procedure, and to determine.its revision number.
Each page of the procedure shall include the procedure number, page number, and revision number centered at the bottom of each page. Present the page in "Page .o f " form.
56 Instruction Format Present instructional information in a consistent format that is easy to read and understand. Several general approaches for formatting instructions in emergency procedures are available, however, the single column format shall be used.
57 Entry E2ncitioni_2r Syme 1221 Provide entry conditions or symptoms under which execution of the steps in the procedure is required.
The set of entry conditions or symptoms is unique to the emergency described by the title; however, the entry conditions for a given proce1Jre may be mul tipl e. That is, more than one set of conditions may require the use of the procedure, and all major conditions should be listed.
5.8 Written 02erator Instructions write short, concise, ident i f i abl e instructions that give approoriate directions to the user and enhance comprehension under emergency conditions. Instructions should be written in complete sentences or in sentence fragments. driting instructions in ATTACHMENT 7 1 AD.NP.16 REV.00
Pcga 3__ of __11__
frtgments is the best use of space, and should be used whenever it is possible.
f.8 1 Writing Instructional Steps Instruction steos will be concise and precise. Conciseness d: notes brevityl preciseness means exactly defined. Thus, instructions should be short and exact. This is easily stated, but not so easil y done. General rules to oe used in meeting these objectives are as follows:
o Instruction steps should deal with only one idea.
- Short, simple sentences or sentence f ragments should be used in preference to long, compound, or complex sentences.
o Complex evolutions should be prescribed in a series of steps, I with each step made as simple as practicable.
o Procedure commands should f oll ow the Action Verb - Noun Name -
Equipment Number, e.g. " START RH Pump IC, IE12-F002C".
e For instructional steps that involve an action verb relating -
to three or more objectives, the objects will be listed with soace provided for operator checkoff.
e Limits should be expressed quantitatively whenever oossible. ,
o Steps may be cerformed in any sequence unless otherwise statedl However steps should be presented in order of importance and use. A single section entitled " Operator Actions" may be used if actions that were normally presented in the "Immediate Action" section are listed first, followed by the actions that were normall y listed in the " Subsequent Action" section.
o Identi fication of components and parts should be complete.
- Do not use footnotes.
e Expected results of routine tasks need not be stated.
- When actions are recuired based upon receipt of an annunciated alarm, list the setpoint of the alarm for ease of verification.
- when recuiring resetting or restoration of an alarm or trip, list the expected results immediately following the task statement that resets or restores the plant system.
ATTACHMENT 7 1 AD.NP.16 REv.00
Pcgs 4__ of __11__
- When considered beneficial to the user for proper understanding.and performance, describe the system response time associated with performance of the instruction.
- When system response dictates a time frame within which the instruction must be accomplished, prescribe such time frame.
If possible however, avoid using time to initiate operator actions. Operator actions should be related to plant parameters.
- When anticipated system response may adversely affect instrument indications, describe the conditions that will likely introduce instrument error and means of determining if instrument error has occurred by using a NOTE.
- When additional con [irmation of system response is considerec '
necessary, orescribe the backup readings to be made.
582 Numerical Values The use of numerical values should be consistent with the foll owing rul es:
- Arabic numerals should be used.,
- For numbers less than unity, the decimal point will be preceded by a zero; for example: 0 1. ,
- The number of significant digits shoulo be equal t'o the number of significant digits available f rom the display and the '
reading precision of the operator. '
s Acceptance values should be specified in such a way that addition and subtraction by the user is avoided if possiole.
This can generally by done by stating acceptance values as !
limits. Examples: 5100F maximum, 300 psfg minimum, 5800 to ,
6000F. For calibration points, statement of the midpoint and i its lower and upper limits for each data cell would accomplish the same ourpose; for example: 10 mill iamperes (9 5 to 10.5).
l 583 Abbreviations, Letter Symbols, and Acronyms l l
Abbreviations may be used to save time and space, and when their meaning is unquestionabl y cl ear to tne intended reader. The Standard Abbreviation List maintained by the Document E Control should be used when writing procedures.
Symbols such as =, >,<,2, 5, should not be used to avoid confusion. The symbols should be written out as equal to.
greater than, less than, greater than or equal to, less than or equal to.
i ATTACHMSNT 7 1 AO.NP.16 REV.00 i
Pags 5 of __11__
5 8.4 Breaking of Words 3reaking of words shall be avoided to f acilitate operator roading.
585 L evel of Oetail Tco much detail in emergency procedures should be avoided in the interest of reading and comprehension. The level of detail rCquired is the detail that a newly trained and licensed coerator would desire during the emergency condition.
To assist in determining the level of emergency procedure dotail, the following general rules apply.
- For each control with a number engraved on the control panel ,
placard, the numoer should be included within the instructional step. Example: Start PCIC dater Leg Pump, IE51-C003.
o For control circuitry that executes an entire function upon actuation of the control switch, the action verb appropriate to the component suffices without f'urther amplification of how to manipulate the control device. E xampl e: Close RECIRC PUMP la SUCTION VALVE IB33-F028 A. Recommended action verbs are as follows:
- a. For power-driven rotating eculpment, use Start, Stop.
- b. For valves, use Open, Shut, Throttl e Open, Throttle Shut, Th ro ttl e.
- c. For power distribution breakers, use Synchronize, Close, and Trio.
o For control switches with a positional pl ac emen t that establ ishes a standby readiness condition, the verb " Set" should be used, along with the engraved name of the desired position. Positional placements are typicall y associated with establishing readiness of automatic functions and are typically named AUTO or NORMAL; for example: Set the INSTRUMENT AIR COMPRESSOR 10 Control Switch in AUTO.
- For multioosition control switches that have more than one position for a similar f unction, pl acement to the desirec position shoulc be specified; for example: Place DIESEL-CRIVEN FIRE PUMP SELECTOR Switch to TEST NO. 2:
- Standard practices for observing abnormal results need not be prescribed within procedural steps. For example, observation of noise, vibration, erratic flow, or discharge pressure neec not De specified by steos that start pumps.
ATTACHMENT 7.1 AD.NP.16 REV.00
Pago __6__ of __1j,_
5 8 6 Units of Measure Units of measure on figures, tables, and attachments should be given for numerical values which represent measurement data or calcul ated results. Use a slant 1.i ne instead of "per".
Exampl es : ft/sec, Ibs/hr.
5 8 7 Capitalization Capitalization should be used for referencing to tables and figures, titles of tables and figures within test material, ano column headings within a table. The following guidance is provided for capitalizing letters or words:
(1) All command words, eg. ENTER, START, STOP.
(2) All command words that indicate steps should be taken together, eg. AND, OR, CONCURRENTLY.
(3) The first letter in titles of procedures, directives, guidelines, contingencies, and trip identification names.
(4) All defjned action words in this directive, section 3.2.
e.g. check, maintain.
(5) The two or three letter code used to identify systems or procedure numbers.
(6) All abbreviations li sted in the standard abbreviation list.
(7) The word caution and the first letter in note.
5 8 8 Figure, Table, and Attachment Numbering S equen ti al arabic numbers will be assigned to figures, tables, and attachments in separate series. The sequance should correspond with the order of tneir reference in the text. The symbol "d" and abbreviation "No." are unnecessary and should not be used. The number alone suffices. Page identification for attachments will be the same as for all other pages of the procedure as specified in Subsection 5.5.
5.8.9 Rotation of Pages Figures, graphs, tables, etc. shall be oriented on the page such that the page need not be rotated to use the aid provided.
59 Ste2_Numoering and Indentation The steo numbering system identified in AO.NP.04, Station Procedures, clearly shows the subordinate level of substeps an minimizes the use of indentation. Procedural steps in an ATTACHMENT 71 AD.NP.16 REV.00 I
1
I Paga 7 of __11__
cccrgency procedure shsuld be dritten in clear, concise language i in the least complex form; therefore, minimize step levels. The l Indcnt l ev el can then be used for cl arity onl y.
5e10 (h.esk2f_f.
f O r2v1112n3 Provide a method as necessary for operators to check of f steps, volve positions, and other items to cid in keeping track of their picce in the precedure. Designated spaces for checkoff are not
> Ccndatory.
5 11 Steo Se2uence Information Mrko steps that have to be performed in a fixed sequence clearly distinguishable from steps that do 221 have to be performed in a fixcd sequence. The method of identifying fixed-sequence steps shall be used consistently throughout all of the emergency procedures and done in accordance with AD.NP.04, Station procedures.
5 12 Mse of Action Verbs Uso action verbs that are commonly used and understood by the cDorators. An action verb list has been developed as part of ,
section 3.0 of this directive to aid in achieving consistency.
The list presents the action verbs selected for use with their d3finitions. Using action verbs that sound alike could cause communication problems and should be avoided. .
5 L3 Pl an t Instrumentation Values Whsn oresenting instrumentation values, provide a band, if possible (tolerance or limit). Values shall be presented in the seno units of measurement as those displayed on the instrument and should be compatible with the operator's ability to read the instrument. Use the conservative value within the precision of operator reading--persons are generally able to read cne-half the distance between instrument markings accurately.
5.L4 Conditional S_tatements and Logis_Seguences write conditional statements so that the description of the condition aopears first, foll owed by the action instruction. If three or more conditions must be described before an action is dirscted, list tne conditions separately from the action ,
instruction. Emphasize logic words using location and croitalization. l Uso of Logic Terms Tho logic terms AUC, Q1, ]QT, ((, ((_3QI, gdgN, TWg3, and OfwER41S{ are often necessary to describe precisely a set of conottions or secuence of actions. ahen logic statements are ,
l ATTACHMENT 71 AO.NP.16 ]
2EV.00 '
l i
Pcgo O__ of __11__
used, logic terms should be highlighted so that all the conditions are clear to the operator. Emphasis shall be achieved by using capitalization. All letters of the logic terms shall be capitalized and the words underlined when they are imbedded in a sentence. The use of ANQ and QR within the same action shall De avoided.
The word QR shall be used when calling attention to al ternative combinations of conditions. The use of the word Q3 shall always be in the inclusive. sense. To specify the exclusive "0R" the following may be used: "either A QR S but not both".
When action steps are contingent upon certain conditions or combinacions of conditions, the step shall begin with the words [E or MH{N followed by a description of the condition or conditions (the antecedent), a comma, the word TH{N, followed by the action to be taken (the consequent). MHEN is used for an expected condition. lE is used for an unexpected but possible condition.
5.15 (gutions Use cautions only to alert an operator to conditions that could result in health hazards or plant damage.
The following attention-getting charar,teristics will facilitate the detection of caution information:
- The caution statement should be identified with the Aeading
" CAUTION". If several cautions precede instructions, only one caution heading is required. However, each caution should appear as a separate paragraph. Each of several cautions preceeding an instruction may have individual " CAUTION" headings if required for better distinction.
- The cautions should be made distinguishable from steps by enclosing them in a box of asterisks. Do not print the caution text in all capitals as an attention-getter because this form is more difficult to read than conventionally printed text using both upper and lowercase letters.
- Place cautions directly ahead of the steps to which they apply, unless they apply to the entire procedurw. In this case, list them together ahead of the instructions. Place the steo numoer (s) in carenthesis after the word CAUTION to show whicn step or section the caution applies.
- Make sure that all of the text of a caution is on one page anc that it is on the same page as the first step to which it applies.
- Make sure cautions contain no action steps.
ATTACHMENT 7.1 AO.NP.16 REV.00
Pcgo __9_ of __15__
5.16 N2111 Uso notes to provide descriptive or explanatory information that is intended to aid the operator in performing the ins truc t i on al stcp. Notes should contain no action steps. Present information to the user in the order in which it is needed. Otherwise, the information can be overlooked during the performance of the step.
If tne information in the note is intended to aid in the parformance of a step, place it ahead of the step. If it pertains to the results of a steo (observing a change as a result of a stop), place it after the step. Notes may be continued on the following page. Place the step number to which the Note applies in parenthesis after the word Note. The margin of the note should coincide with the step to which it applies.
5 17 (215.21A11201 Cc1culations should be minimized as much as possible; nowever, if thoy are needed, provide enough space in the procedure for the cporator to perform the needed calculations and record the rcsults.
5 18 h Math 221_2f._E*2.h.A111 Tho method of emphasis should be used censistently and sparingly.
Tho key is to use the least emphasis possible. Some of the following methods of emphasis are discussed:
SA211AliLA1120 may be used to emphasize individual words or short phrases. It decreases readability if applied to entire codies of text. Therefore, it should be used sparingly.
Mcaerlialns may be used to empnasize inoivicual words, long ohrsses, or entire sentences. It has the least impact on readab il ity and !s easily impl emen ted. Underlining is recommended e especially for miscellaneous emphasis, since it is seldom chosen as cart of the scheme of emphasizing special types of words or nomenclature.
Su2tation_ Maria may be used to emphasize switch positions, indicator light names, or annunciator nameplates.
Indentation may be used to emohasize bodies of text. It can be effective if it does not conflict with the indentation format.
Enjming may be used to empnasize bodies of text. Generally, it should be reserved for cautions.
Soma of the types of woros and phrases that may be emphasized are as follows:
verbatim equipment naneplates ATTAcMME'IT 7.1 AD.NP.16 REV.00
Pega __12__ of __11_ ,
engraved or placarded switch positions verbatim annunciator l ight wording caution or warning flag words (the word " Caution" itsel f) conditional logic words 5 19 Referencing _and_ Branching use procedure referencing and branching consistently and when required. When the term " referencing" is used in connection with anotner procedure, it implies that the referenced procedure will be used as a supplement to the procedure presently being used.
When the term " branching" is used in connection with another procedure, it signifies that the procedure being used :s to be exiting and the new procedure is to be used in its entirety.
Branching is an acceptable method of entering another procedure and eliminates most of the problems associated with referencing.
In determining whether to reference another part of the procedure for instructions or to repeat the instructions within the procedure, consider the following f actors:
If the referenced instructions can be repeated without greatly increasing the length of the procedure, repeat tnem.
Tabbing referenced sections too long to repeat woulq assist the operator in locating the information quickly.
If the procedure splits into two or more optional paths, references to other steps may be unavoidable.
Be sure there is a means of returning the user to the correct steo in the procedure after using the reference.
Referencing steps before or ahead of the present step creatas a problem if the user has to return to the next step.
To minimize potential operator confusion, branching will be used when the operator is to leave one procedure and use anotner procedure. Use the key word " ENTER". The operator will know when to leave the crocedure and not return until directed.
Cuotation marks may be used to emphasize the title of the referenced or branched procedure.
! In determining whether to reference another procedure, branch to another procedure, or provide the instructions within the procedure being written, consider the following factors:
How do the emergency procedures and other supporting Diant l procedures interrelate for compat ib il i ty?
ATTACHMENT 7 1 AD.NP.16 '
REV.00 I
- , - - , - - - , - , . , - ,,-,-, ,, ,, ,,--- --,--,,.,-.e-. - ,, - -- , -m -- , , - - - - - - -
Paga __11__ of __11__
The total number of procedures should be considered and einimized as much as possible.
If the information in question is material that is part of the oxpected knowledge of the adequately trained operator, a roference may not be necessary.
If a sequence of actions i s covered completel y by another oxisting procedure and if the original procedure is not to be ro-entered, consider using branching to the procedure.
If a sequence of actions is covered completel y by another Cxisting procedure, and if the original procedure is to be re-cntered, consider referencing the procedure.
If the information to be referenced can be included in a procedure without greatl y increasing its length, a reference or branch should not be used.
s Rcference compl ete procedures or sections of a procedure, if possible. Tabbing procedures or sections referenced would assi st the operator in locating the material.
5 20 Iden ti f iga t i on _o f_gggi gment ._gon t rol s . _ and _ D i s p l ays Ccnststently present nomenclature within the procedure by writing the equipment name first, followed by the equipment number. This should agree with the nameplate identification. .
Abbreviations may be used as they appear on the nameplate. All cbbreviations shall be written in accordance with the Standard AbDreviation List maintained by the Document C Control Section.
5.21 (ocation Information provide location information in the procedure if required to aid operators in finding equipment, controls, or displays. When the location information is used, present it last, in parentheses, to prcvent interference with the action instructions.
5.22 0 2erator_ Aids Printed operator aids supporting emergency procedures must be comoatible with the procedures. A decision tree utilizing conventional symbols (diamond-shaped decision blocks and rGctangular-shaped blocks) can be used effectively with a minimum of training. This type of decision tree can be presented as a single Dage or as a mul ti-sheet diagram. A decision table can be used to provide direction for follow-on actions. A large number of actions can he presented in condensed form. Values used in printed ocerator aids must correspond to values the operator will obtain f rom pl ant instrumentation, and to the written instructions in the crocedure.
ATTACHMENT 7 1 AC.NP.15 REv.00
Pags 12 of 15 Printed operator aids can be presented on attachments to emergency procedures. As attachments, they are availaole for operator use at the time they are needed.
5 23 Use of Foldout Pages when used, a foldout page is treated as a single page. It should follow the same format as a standard page except the width is different. The page should be folded so that a small margin exists between the fold and the right-hand edge of standard pages.
This will reduce wear of the fold. The use of foldout oages should be minimized.
5.24 U_1e__2 f _0 ersized Paces Overside cages should not be used. They should be reorganized or reduced to a standard page. If this cannot be done, a foldout page should be used.
5.25 M12_of '2dMi*d P 2221 Reduced pages should be avoided whenever possible. Final size of reduced pages should be standard page size. Reduced pages should be readabl e.
5 26 Regr2 d uction Reproduction will be done on a standard copter, doublq-sided copy only. Additionally, every page should be checked ,for proper reproduction.
5.27 E2mEMigr-Oriven QERE112r Aids Computer-driven operator aids with the purpose of supporting emergency procedures should be compatible with the emergency procedures and follow the requirements and recommendations of this directive in so f ar as possible. The operator shall be able to use the emergency operating procedures if the computer-driven operator aid is non-operable.
5 28 Grammar Secause emergency orocedures are different from normal narrative writing, certain intentional exceptions to standard grammatical rules are necessary. This is especially apparent when using tne sentence fragment method.
ATTACHMENT 71 AD.NP.16 l QEV.00 l l
. Paga __1]__ of _ 15 Ae Specific exceptions (1) Minimize the use of articles (the, a, an) unless they are needed for clarity. This practice helps reduce the length of ,
the instructions, and thus increases reading speed.
(2) Vary the rules for capitalization as necessary to follow the methods of emphasis.
(3) Do not use pronouns, if possible, because of the potential for confusion in determining its noun.
Se Spelling Spelling should be consistent with modern usage. When a choice of spelling is of fered by a dictionary, the first soelling should be used.
Ce Hyphenation Hyphens are used between elements of a compound word when usage call s for it. The following rules should be followed for hyphenation. ,
(1) In compound numerals from twenty-one to ninety-nine; Example: one hundred thirty-four (2) In fractions; Examples: one-half, two-thirds .
(3) In compounds with "sel f"; Exampl e: self-contained, self-lubricated.
(4) When the last letter of the first word is the same vowel as the first letter of the second word; as an alternative, two words may be used; Example: fire-escape or fire escaoe (5) When misleading or awkward consonants would result by joining the words; Example: bel l-l i k e (6) To avoid confusion with another wordi E xampl es : re-cover to orevent confusion with recover, pre-position to avoid confusion with preposition (7) When a letter is linked with a noun; Examples: X-ray, 0-ring, U-bolt, I-beam (9) To separate chemical el ements and their atomic weight; Examples: Uranium-235, U-235
- 3. pu nc tu at ion Punctuation should be used only as necessary to aid readinj ano prevent misuncerstanding. Word oroer should be selectec to ATTACHMENT 71 AD.NP.16 REV.00
Pago _ M _ of _ L require a minimum of punctuation. When extensive punctuation is necessary for clarity, the sentence should be rewritten and possibly made into several sentences. Punctuation will be in accordance with the following rules.
(1) Brackets Do not use brackets (2) col on l
Use a colon to indicate that something is to follow. )
l (3) Comma 1 Use of many commas is a sign the instruction is too conplex ,
and needs to be rewritten.
1 (4) Parentheses l Parentheses will be used to indicate al ternative items in a '
procedure, instruction, or equipment numbers.
I (5) Period .
Use a period at the end of complete sentences and for indicating the decimal place in numbers.
(6) Vocabulary Words used in procedures should convey crecise understanding to the trained person. The following rules apply:
- a. Use simple words. Simple words are usually short worcs of few syllables. Simple words are generally common worcs.
( b. Use common usage if it makes the procedure easier to
! understand.
- c. Use words that are concrete rather than vague, specific l rather than general, f amiliar rather than formal, precise rather than blanket.
l
- d. Define key aords that may be understood in more tnan one sense.
- e. Verbs with specific meaning should be used.
5 29 g3gg_33rgini page margins should be sufficient to ensure that subsecuent reproduction and binding or staoling will not cut off the procedure content, page iden ti fi cation information, revision date.
ATTACHMENT 7 1 A7.NP.16 DEV.00
Paga J _ of 15 or checkoff data. AD.NP.64, Station Procedures addresses page mtrgins and shall be adhered to.
5.30 @MLgg311h Tho printed quality of the procedures must be legibly reproduced
, -to cnsure proper interpretation of acronyms and abbreviations.
Any procedures that are not ledgible should be reported to suporvision via a written memorandum so that the procedure can be logibl y reproduced.
ATTACHMENT 7.1 AD.NP.16 REV.00
N m Page _ of __
STEP 00CUMENTA'TIO SHEET Procedure being reviewed: _ _ _ ____ ___
Titio/ Number Proposed revision number: _________ __
gmergency_ Procedure _Section 50ction Number Section Phraseology
- SWROG Guidelina Step s Steo Number -
Step phraseology .
Justificg11on f or_ Di f f erences 1
Procedure Writer Signature /Date Recommend Approval / DisaDoroval i
Operations Suoervisor/Cate Approved / Disapproved Suot., Cperations Div./ Oste l
ATTACHMENT 7.2 page 1 of 1 AD.NP.16' D.EV.00 ,
ATTACHMENT 7.3 PROCEDURE VERIFICATION FORMS 4
ATTACHMENT 7.3 page 1 of 5 AC.NP.16 REV.00
PROCEDURE VERIFICATIONS FORM #1 Page of PROCEDURE TITLE: __ __ _ _ _
PROCEDUR E NUMBER: PROPOSED REVISION:
SCOPE Oc VERIFICATION: __ __ _ ____
m EOP SOURCE DOCUMENTS USED:
- 1. BWROG Emergency Procedure Guidelines, Rev.
- 2. Emergency orocedure Writing Guideline, AD.NP.16, Rev._____
EVALUATORS ASSIGNE0:
P90GiQMRE-GEg{RAL VERIFICATlqN .
- 1. WRITTEN CORRECTNESS AREAS AqqEPTABLE Q11(g{gANCY SHEil_glil LEGIBILITY _ _ _
PROCEDURE FORMAT CONSISTENCY _
IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION _____ __ _ _
l
- 2. TECHNICAL ACCURACY -
l AEgAl ACCEPIABLE DISCR ED ANCY_ SH EET gisl None i
l l
l l
l l
l ATTACHMENT 7.3 Page 2 of 5 AO.NP.16 DEV.00 l
~
ATTACHMENT 7 3 Page 3 of 5 AD.NP.16 PROCEDURE VERIFICATION REv.00 rdure
Title:
FORM #2 edure No: Proposed Rev. Page_of_
,, CAUTIO_Ng_ NOTE-SPECIFIC VERIFICATION NUMBER, WRITTEN CORRECTNESS TECHNICAL ACCURACY CONTROL ROOM /
.~0N , OR PLANT HARDWARE
)TE ACCEPTABLE DISCREPANCY ACCEPTABLE DISCREPANCY ACCEPTABLE DISCREPANCY SHEET # SHEET # SHEET #
w u
l l
t l.
i I
l
. DISCREPANCY SHEET NUMBER FOR* C3 Page _ of Procedure
Title:
Procedure Number: __ Proposed Rev.1__ SLep P. umber: _ ___
Diserepancy:__ _
Evaluator: __ _____ Date:
Rosolution(s): _
l__ _ _
Evaluator: , , _ Date:
Recommend Approval: Yes No (Circle One)
Ooerations Supervisor: Date:
Approved: Yes No (Circle One)
Operations Suoerintendent: Date:
Resolution Incorporated By: _____ _
Oate:
l l
ATTAC@ENT 7.3 Page 4 of 5 AD.NP.16 REV.00 l
PROCEDURE VERIFICATION Form #4 '
Page of ,
Procedure
Title:
Crocedure Number: Proposed Revision:
Performed By:
Written Correctness Reviewer /Date Technical Accuracy Reviewer /Cate Control Room / Plant Hardware Reviewer /Cate Other (Specify) / Date Reviewed By:
Operations Supervisor /Date All actions required by the verification have been completed and approved 4
Superintendent Operations Division /Date l
1 A TT AC wP E *lT 73 page 5 of 5 AD.NP.16 REV.00 y ,, . - - , . . . - . , . - - - .n,-, - - . . r,.. - - - - . , - . - , .
ATTACHME*4T 7.4 PROCEDURE VERIFICATION EVALUATION CRITERIA CHECKLIST I
l l
i i
I t
?
l l ATTACHMENT 7.4
( Page 1 of 7 l AD.NP.16
, REV.00 l
EVALUATION CRITERIA ($g(K(111 AREA
I. PROCEDURE
-GENERAL A. Written Correctness
- 1. Legibility
- a. Are the printed borders visible on all procedure pages?
- b. Are the text, tabl es , g raphs, figures, and charts legible to the evaluator?
- 2. EOP Format Consistency
- a. Do the following sections exist in each EOP:
Section 1 - TITLE -
Section 2 - ENTRY CONDITIONS Section 3 - OPERATOR ACTIONS .
- b. Is the page layout consistent with the format identified in AD.NP.04.
" Station Procedures"?
- 3. Identification Information
- a. Is the procedure title descriptive o'f the purpose of the procedure?
ATTACHMENT 7.4 Page 2 of 7 AD.NP.16 REV.00
- ) . Does the cover sheet correctly provide the following:
(1) procedure title (2) procedure number (3) revision number (4) number of pages
- c. Does each page correctly provice the following:
(1) orocedure designator (2) rev is ion number (3) Page of ___ numbers
- d. Does the procedure have all its pages in the correct order?
II. STEP, CAUTION, NOTE-SPECIFIC A. Written Correctness
- 1. Information Presentation
- a. Are instruction steps numbered cor rec tl y?
- b. Are operator-optional sequence steps identified?
- c. Are instruction steps constructed to compl y with the following:
(1) Steps deal with only one idea.
(2) Sentences are short and simple.
(3) Operator actions are specifically stated.
(4) Objects of operator actions are specifically stated.
ATTACHMENT 7.4 Page 3 of 7 AD.NP.16 REV.00 l
1 I
-. - - - . = _ - .
(5) Objects of operator ar.tions are adequately stated.
(6) If there are three or more objects, they are listed (and sp. ace is ,
provided for operator check-off).
(7) Punctuation and capitilization are proper.
(8) Abbreviations are correct and understandabl e to the operator.
- d. 0" instruction steps make. proper use et logic structure?
- e. When an action instruction is based on receipt of an annunciator al arm, is the setpoint of the alarm identified?
- f. Are precautions and cautions used appropriately?
- g. Are precautions 'and cautions placed properly?
- h. Are precautions and cautions constructed to compl y with the following:
(1) They do not contain operator actions.
(2) They do not use extensive punctuation for clarity.
(3) They make proper use of emphasis. 4
- 1. Are notes properly used?
J. Are notes properl y placed?
l ATTACHMENT 7.4 Page 4 of 7 AD.NP.16 REV.00
- _. ..~ . - - - .,
- k. Are notes worded so that they do not contain operator actions?
- 1. t.re numerical values properly written?
- m. Are values specified in such a way that mathematical operations are not required of the user?
. n. Is a chart or graph provided in the procedure for necessary operator calculations?
- o. Are units of measurement in the EOP the same as those used on equipment?
- 2. Procedure Referencing and Branching
- a. Do the referenced and branched procedures identified in the EDPs exist for operator use?
- b. Is the use of referencing minimized?
- c. Are referencing and branching instructions correctly worded?
6 (1) " enter" (branching) .
a refer (2) to" (referencing) .
- d. Do the instructions avoid routing users past important information such as cautions preceding steos?
- e. Are the exit conditions compatible with the entry conditions of the referenced or branched procedure?
a ATTACEMENT 7.4 Page 5 of 7
, AD.NP.16 REv.00
I B. Technical Accuracy l
- 1. Entry Conditions or Symptoms Information
- a. Are the entry conditions of the procedure listed correctl y?
- b. If additional entry conditions have been added, do they comply with the following:
(1) appropriate entry conditions for which the procedure should be used (2) not excessive
- 2. Instructional Step, C aution, and Note Information
- a. Are procedure /quideline differences:
(1) documented 4
(2) explained
- b. Is the guideline technical foundation (strategy) changed by the following changes in procedure steps, cautions, or notes:
- (1) elimination i (2) addition l
(3) sequence (4) alteration
- c. Are correct, plant-specific adaptations incorporated per the guideline:
(1) systems (2) instrumentation
?-
l l
l ATTACHMENT 7.4 page 6 of 7 AD.NP.16 REV.00
(3) limits (4) controls (5) indications
- d. Have licensing commitments applicable to emergency procedures been addressed?
- e. Are differences between the licensing commitments and the procedures or guidelines documented?
- 3. Quantitative Information
- a. Do the quantitative values, including tolerance bands, used in the procedure comply with applicable procedure source document?
- b. Where guideline values are not used in the procedure,,are the procedure values computed accurately?
- c.
- When calculations are required by the
- procedure, are equations presented with sufficient information for operator use?
- 4. Plant Hardware Information
- a. Is the following plant hardware specified in the procedure available for operator use:
(1) equipment (2) controls (3) indicators (4) instrumentation ATTACHMEN T 7.4 page 7 of 7 AC.NP.16 REV.00
ATTACHMENT 7.5 DROCEDURE VALIDATION FORMS l
l l
i l
f ATTACHMENT 7.5 I Page 1 of 4 AD.NP.16 REV.00 i
FORM c5 Page _ __ of PROCEDURE VALIDATION Procedure Ti'tl e: _ __
Prccedure No: __ __
Proposed Revision: _
Secpo of Validation:
s Evaluators Assigned: _ Operators' Assigned: ___
\
~
l l
1 l
Procedure Validation L. Method Used: !
Table Top Simulator Walk-Through Reference
- 2. Usability l iradi A1122119.12 Di1EE2200C Y_lheeLEM i l
Level of Detail __ __ _ :
Understandability _ ____ _ __
i ATTACHMENT 7 5 Page 2 of 4 AO.MP.16 REV.00
. _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . ___. - _ _ _ . ~ . _ . _ _ . . -- - _ _ . . . _____ . _
i Ferm 06 Page _ of __
l 1
- 3. Operational Correctness !
l
, Areas Agceptable Discrepancy _ Sheet c(s) l l Plant Compatibility l
i operator Compatibility __
I t i t l l
l ,
i Performed By:
Usability Reviewer /Date Operational Correctness Reviewer /Date Reviewed Sy:
Operations Supervisor /Date All actions required by the validation have been completed-and approved.
l Superintendent, Operations Division /Date ATTACHMENT 7.5 page 3 of 4 AO.NP.16
- 2. E V . 00
FCRM 01 Page , of _
DISCREPANCY SHEET NUMBER _______
Precodure
Title:
Proc 0 dure No: ___ Proposed Rev.: Step Number: _____
l Olscropancy:
t 1
l ___
=_________ __ __ _
l Evaluator: Date Resolution (s): __
1
! Evaluated By: _ _
Oate: __
l Recommended Approval Yes No (Circle One)
Goorations Supervisor: _
Oate: __
Approved: Yes No (Circle One)
Operations Superintendent: _ ___ _
Oate: __ __
Aesolution Incorporated By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Date: ______
ATTACHMENT 7 5 page 4 of 4 AD.NP.16 l
l REV.00 i
I L
ATTACHMENT 7 6 PROCEDURE VALIDATION METHODS l
f
/
l i
(
i l
l l
I 1
l l I
I l
l l
i l
\
r l l l
t ATTACHMENT 7.6 j.
Page 1 of 15 )
AD.NP.16 REV.00 l
l l
THE TABLE-TOP METHOD OF VALIDATION 1 0 PURPOSE EstEblish guidance for the table-top method of validating the procedures.
2.0 PREPARATION Prcotration for the table-top method consists of the following
&ctivities:
l i
o designate observer / review team personnel l I
o dsvelop the validation plan l l
2 1 Designate Observer / Review Team Personnel khOn the table-top method has been designated by the Operations Sup0rintendent as being the most effective method for a given Essessment, tabl e-top observer / review team who are skilled in plant operations, procedures, training and test evaluation methods will be topoinced.
2 2 Davelop the Validation Plan As part of preparing for a table-top, a validation plan will be dsveloped. Developing this plan will require consideration'of the following:
o puroose of conducting the validation
- specific objective (s) to be tested specific principles and guidances to be tested (scope) o selection of scenarios and/or . dustry operating experiences required to satisfy validation objectives to be tested o how procedures are to be used o rules for operator and observer / review team behavior during assessment o detection and classification of errors o administration of the validation plan After the resources to support the table-top have been sel ec ted , the observer / review team shall: !
l ATTACHMENT 7.o Page 2 of 15 AD.NP.16 i aEv.00 J i
_ . - _ . - ~ ,, , ,_, _. _ _. , , _ - - . ,.
i I
o cerango for uso of requirod procsduros, sp2cifications, related technical documentation, plant incident reports, LERs, SEps, and 50ERs o arrange for use of a room equipped with adequate surface to layout procedures and related documentation I o develop and/or review scenarios and select those which are appropriate for the table-top method o arrange for the use of required personnel based on one of the following combinations:
- One-on-One - One member of the observer / review team and one operator for discussion of scenarios.
- One-on-Crew - One member of the observer / review team and an operating crew for discussion of scenarios.
l - Team-on-Crew - The observer / review team and the operating crew for discussion of scenarios.
- Team-on-One - The observer / review team and one operator for ,
discussion of scenarios.
l - Review Team and no operators .To study and discuss in-house l
and industry operating exoeriences.
l 3 0 ASSESSMENT For discussion of scenarios, the observer / review team leader shall:
o provide the observer / review team with a copy of the* procedure (s) to be validated and debriefing forms o review with the entire team how the table-top will he conducted o review the overall objective'and technique of the tabletop with operators who are taking part in the assessment o provide the operators with a copy of the procedure (s) to be validated o review the use of the Observation and Debriefing Checklists -ith the operators o provide operators and observer / review team with a copy of the
( scenarios o review the scenarios and any underlying assumptions about them o complete the Observation Checklist (s)
Operators shall:
o use the procedures as the observer / review team leaos tnem through the scenario l ATTACHMENT 7.6 Page 3 of 15 AD.NP.16 REv.00
Fce rovicw of in-heuce cnd industry cporcting exportances, obscrver/reviw teau personnel will study and discuss plant incident rcports, LERs, SERs, and SOERs to evaluate the procedure (s).
4 0 RESOLUTION At tho end of the discussion of scenarios, the observer / review team shallt i
o interview the operators to find out if the precedures are understandable ^and sensible in terms of operating the plant 0 ccmplete the Oebriefing Checklist to assess how e f f ec t ivel y the pcrticipants used the procedures to complete the scenario o discuss the results of the Debriefing and Observation Checklists as another mechanism for uncovering information about the procedures.
After either discussion of scenarios or review of industry operating cxportences, the observer / review team shall:
o document discrepancies which are found in the EOPs o forward discrepancies and possible solutions to the Operations Supervisor
- s. JOCUMENTATION Documentation will exist for the following:
o scope of the validation o participants o validation method (s) used o scenarios used o observat ion forms used o debriefing forms used o possible solutions for each discrepancy o resolution for each discrepancy ATT ACHMENT 7.o Page 4 of 15 AD.NP.16 3EV.00
THE WALK-THROUGH METHOD OF VALIDATION 1 0 PURPOSE Establish guidance for the walk-through method of validating the procedures.
2 0 PREDARATION Preparation for the walk-through method consists of the following activities:
o designate observer / review team personnel o develop the validation plan 2 1 Designate Observer / Review Personnel When the wal k-through method has been designated by the Operations Superintendent as being the most effective method for a given essessment, wal k-through observer / review team personnel who are skilled in plant operations, procedures, training and test evaluation methods will be appointed.
The observer / review team shall arrange for the following, equipment, as necessary:
real equipment dynamic simulators mock-up operator auxiliary equioment (e.g., respirators, protective clothing, radiation detectors) if required Audio / Video equipment 2 2 Develop the Validation plan As cart of plan'ning for a walk-through, a validation plan will be developed. Developing this plan will recuire consideration of the following:
o purpose of conducting the validation
- specific objective (s) to be tested (scope) scecific principles and guidances to be tested ATTACPMENT 7 6 Page 5 of 15 .
AD.NP.16 I REv.00 l
o solection of scenarios required to satisf y validation objectives to be tested o hcw procedures are to be used a rule for operators and observer / review team behavior during essessment o dctection and classification of errors o cdministration of the plan -
AftGr the resources to support the wal k-through have been sel ected, tha cbserver/ review team shall:
o arrange for the use of required personnel o dcvelop and/or review scenarios and select those which are appropriate for the walk-through method 3 0 8.SsESSMENT Tha observer / review team leader shall:
o review with the observer / review team the responsibilities of orch member, clarifying all questions concerning use of forms or use of videotape -
o review the overall objective and techniques of the walk-through with operators who are participating in the walk-through o provide the operators with a copy of the procedure (s) to,be validated o review the use of the Observation and Debriefing Ckecklists with the operators o review the scenarios and any underlying assumptions about then Operators shall: 4 o walk / talk through actions they would take during specific situations covered by the scenario (s) o dascribe actions they are taking o identify information sources used to take actions o identify controls used to carry out actions, expected system resoonse(s), how response (s) verified, and action (s) to be taken if response (s) did not occur Observer / Review Team Member No. I shall: )
o direct walk-through ATTACHMENT 7.6 I
Page 6 of 15 AO.NP.16 REV.00
. -- . . _ - - . - . - . .. . - ~ _ _ . -- _- . . ._ .
. o coordinate efforts of operators, observer-review team, and video team o review scenario (s) o ask appropriate "what if" questions o note problems and discrepancies encountered by operators Observer / Review Team Member No. 2 shall:
o plot movement pattern of oper& tors using layout diagrams o track operators usage o,f procedures o record discrepancies and proolems encountered by operators o ask appropriate "what if* questions Observer / Review Team Member No. 3 shall:
o track operator usage of procedures o record discrepancies and problems encountered by operator o coordinate Audio / Visual with videotape crew o ask appropriate "what if" questions 4.0 RESOLUTION .
Resolutions for the walk-through method consists of the *following activities:
o debrief operators o evaluate findings 4 1 Debrief Operators After the assessment is completed, an in-depth debriefing Detween j the observer / review team and participating operators will be conducted. The debriefing shall occur immedi atel y af ter the completion of the assessment in order to maximize the effectiveness of the debriefing.
The observer / review team shall o brief the ooerators on the purpose and objectives for cebriefing Operator s shall:
o present problems and discrepancies which they identi f ied during the assessment -- these versal expl anations may be augmented by videotape displays of problems ATTACHMENT 7.6 Page 7 of 15 AD.NP.16 DEV.00
. ~ _
o prcscnt possiblo causcs for prob 1 cms o present potential solutions to problems Tho observer / review team sh al l :
o present problems and discrepancies identified during assessment
-- verbal explanations may be augmented by videotape displays o interview operators as to possible cause(s) for problem (s) o interview operators as to possible solution (s) for problem (s) o present explanation (s) of possible causes and potential solutions Evolucte Findings Aftor the debriefing, data gathered from the assessment and d0briofing must be evaluated. Procedure discrepancies will be documGnted and forwarded to the Operations Supervisor.
5.0 00CUMENTATION Documcntation will exist for the following:
o scope of the validation
~
o participants o validation method (s) used o scenarios used o observation forms used o dobriefing forms used o possible solutions for each discrepancy o rosolution for each discrepancy l
l l
ATTACHMENT 7 6 Page 9 of 15 AD.NP.16 REV.00
THE SIMULATOR METHOD OF VALIDATION 1 0 PURPOSE Establish guidance for the simulator method of validating procedures.
2 0 PRE.PARATION Preoaration for the simulator method consists of the following activities:
o designate observer / review team
~ .
o select simulator o evaluate plant and simulator systems o se.act s imul ator scenarios o delineate expected operator actions o develop data collection technique,s o eval uate plant-s imul ator characteristics o reconcil e settings ,
o amend procedures ,
o select operating crews o conduct crew familiarization 2 1 Designate Observer / Review Team when the simulator method has been designated Dy tne Operations Superintendent as being the most effective method for a given validation. session, an observer / review team shall be appointed whose msmbers are sk il l ed in plant operations, procedures, traintne, and test evaluation methods.
2 2 Select Simulator Prior to each assessment the simulator to be used and the cates -ill be designated in writing. One or more simulators may be considered, including a control room simulator and part-task simulators.
2.3 Evaluate Pl ant and S imul ato r Systems After the simulator has been designated, observer / review team norsonnel will examine the degree of compatib il i ty wnich exists ATTACHMENT 7.6 Page 9 of 15 AD.NP.16 DEV.00
b;tw0cn tho detucl centrol rces tnd tha slaulator. Systsas and suboystems will be compared and contrasted between the actual control room and the simulator. Differences which exist will De idcntified and documented.
In Gveluating the compatibility of the simulator to the actual pl ent, at least four major areas will be considered:
o ccntrol room design o nuclear steam supply systems o balance of plant systems o electrical systems In collecting data in'each of these areas, the following questions
.will-be addressed:
O Are the same systems / subsystems found in both the plant and the .
simulator?
o Are there systems / subsystems found in the simulator which are squivalent to those found in the plant?
o Are the systems / subsystems operationally equivalent with respect to response times, tolerances, setpoints, and mode of operation (automatic or manual)?
o Are systems which can be used to manage the emergency available to the operator in one setting and not in the other?
24 S el ect Simulator Scenarios In selecting scenarios to be run on the simulator, the obssrver/ review team members of the validation team will examine the cntiro set of scenarios which had been constructed for all metnods of val idation, taking into consideration the following:
o systems / subsystems used in the scenarios constructed 4 o systems / subsystems differences between the plant and simulator o systems / subsystems which are of primary importance. secondary importance, or lesser importance in managing the scenario If a simulator script does not exist for the selected scenarios, one must he developed. Contact the simulator operator to provide the simulator sequence.
2 5 Delineate Expected Operator Actions After the o3 server / review team has sel ected its scenarios for val idation by the simulator method, it will identify the procedures which should be exercised by each scenario. The team will delineate a cath through the orocedures which the operator could follow in mancginc the emergency event. A list of expected operator actions ATTACHMENT 7.6 Page 10 of 15 A D . .'I P .16 REV.00
, b 00d cn this potential path cill bo prcparcd as an atd in preparing the observer and debriefing forms.
2 6 Develop Data Collection Techniques Tcchniques for measuring and recording operator performance will be preoared by observer / review team which will permit the following analyses for each scenario:
o anal ysis of the operator's abiliity to control severdl plant parameters o comparison of discrete operator actions to the previously prepared list of expected operation actions o comparison of the time to perform either a discrete action or a process control task to previously established time frame
. standards The manual data collaction techniques of videotape and observer forms will be orepared for use during assessment.
2.7 Evaluate Plant-Simulator Characteristics A contrasting of the simulated and actual control room settings with resoect to the actual control room's, human factors design, operational design, workspace design and communication system design will be conducted by observer / review team personnel in order to aid the evaluation of whether or not operator performance deviations occurring in the simulator setting would also occur in the actual pl ant.
2.8 Reconcile Settings
- Changes to the simulator setting will be made where possible to increase simulator / plant control fidelity. All attempts at minimizing dif f erences will be noted on the observer forms orecared by the observer / review team.
2 9 Amend Procedures Difference which remain Detween the actual plant equipment ano the simulator equipment may be resolved by rewording the references to the plant-specific equipment in the procedures. Drocedures characteristics such as format, style and level of detail will not be changed in the rewording.
2.10 Select Operating Crews All operating crew personnel will be rotated throughout the various simulator validation / training sessions. For any given assessment, l anough crews will be selected and used such that one crew may be dscriefed, while another is on the simulater. This will allow j immediate ooerator debriefing and efficient use of siculatsr tama. i 2 11 Conduct Crew Familiarization ATTACHMENT 7 6 Page 11 of 15 AD.No.16 REV.00
Prfor to their session at the simulator, the operating crews to be uscd for the actual validation trial s will be f amiliarized with the n:w procedyres during plant training sessions. In addition, , ,
differences which exist between plant and simulator characteristics such as hum'an f actors design, ' operations . design -and workspace design will be discussed.
3 0 ASSESSMENT t
An cbserver/ review team member will be asstgned for each operator pcrticioating. Each scenario should be performed only once by one of tho crews and the observer / review teams will complete their forms for acch scenario.
Whcther or not videotape is used during the run, copies of the cbsGrver checklists will be used by observer / review team to note the cptrators' actions during the scenario. A copy of the form for each scGnsrio should reflect the actions of each participant, and it will bo usGd for debriefing the operators.
4.0 RESOLUTION Rosolution f or the simulator method consists of the following
- tctiviti es :'
\
o dobrief operators -
o svaluate findings . .
4 1 Osbrief Operators After the assessment i s compl ated, an in-depth debriefing ce,tNevn th2 observer / review team and carticipating operators will be conducted. The debriefing shall occur immediately after the- '
completion.of the assessment in order to maximize the effectivaness of the debriefing.
-The observer / review team shall:
o brief the ooerators on the purpose and objectives for debriefing Oosrators shall:
o present problems,and discrepancies which they identified du r i ng the assessment -- verbal exolanations may De augmented by videotace displays of problegs o present possible causes for problems o cresent potential solutions to problems The observer / review team shall: "
o cresent problems and discrepancies id'entified during assessment
-- verbal explanations may be augmented by videotaoe disolays s
/
o interview operators as to possib;e cause(s) for problem (s)
ATTACHMENT 7.6 Page 12 of 15 1
'AD.NP.16 '
REV.00 l
~._, ,
, o intorvice oporotors cs to possiblo solution (s) for orcblem(s) o present explanation (s) of possible causes and potential solutions i
4.2 Evaluate Findings After the debriefing, data gathered from the assessment and dGbriefing must De evaluated. Procedure discrepancies and possible solutions will be documented and forwarded to the Operations Supervisor.
The Operations Supervisor shall:
o review procedure discrepancies and possible solutions which are forwarded to him by the observer / review team o forward recommended resolutions to the Operations Superintendent for approva) 5.0 DOCUMENTATION 0
,ccumentation will exist for the following:
o scope of the validation o partic ip&nts o validation method (s) used o results of any plant / simulator compatibility checks o amendment of procedures
- o scenarios used o observation forms used o debriefing forms used o possible solutions for each discrepancy o resolution for each di sc repanc y ATTACnMENT 7.6 page 13 of 15 AD.NP.16 REV.00
RE8ERENCE METHOD OF VALIDATION 1 0 PURPOSE Tho purpose of this checklist is to provide guidance in the use of dctG selected f rom a reference validatiot; of emergency procedures.
2 0 PREPARATION Tho dosignated reviewer will be responsible for the following:
o identifying all differences in hardware'and shift manpower botween the Station and the referenced plant ,
o identifying the differences in the format and the level of
-dotail between the procedure to be validated and the referenced procedure o solecting the applicable data from the reference validation 3 0 ASSESSMENT Tho dosignated reviewer will be responsible for the following:
o ovaluating the differences in hardware and shift manpower o ovaluating the differences in the format and the level of detail 0 rccording discrepancies and comments on a discrepancy sheet with the applicable data selected from the referenced validation 4 0 RESOLUTION t
The dasignated reviewer will perform the following duties:
o roview comments and discrepancies o ovaluate the potential impact of any differences between the crocedure to be validated and the referenced validation o prooose resolutions for the Operations Supervisor o recommend procedure val idation by Table-Top / Walk-Through or Simulator method to confirm reference validation results Tha Operations Supervisor will cerform the following duties:
o review the validation package o determine the scooe of validation needed to confirm the resolutions and initiate another validation method, if necessary ATTACHMENT 76 Page 14 of 15 AC.4P.16 REV.00
._- - _ - . = ._
o present tha rcviscd proccduro to tha Opercticns Suporintendcnt
, fCr c;provc1 if subsequ0nt volidcticn is not requirca 5.0 DOCUMENTATION
! The following documentation will be submitted with the validation pcckage:
o Validation Forms o Discrepancy Sheets o Reference Validation Package i
o selected Reference Data i
I
) .
I I
l l
l t
l ATTACHMENT 7.6 Page 15 of 15 AD.NP.16 REV.00 l
ATTACHMENT 7.7 PROCEDURE VALIDATION EVALUATION CRITERIA CHECKLIST s
ATTACHMENT 7.7 kage L of 9 AD.NP.16 4EV.00
Form 36 Page _ of __
l OBSERVATION CHECKLIST precedure
Title:
Precedure Not __ __ __ Proposed Revt __ _,_
Scopo of Validationt
- I. Q}A(ITY A. LEVEL OF DETAIL Olscrepancy Yes No Sheet c
- 1. Did the operator appear to have sufficient information to perform the specified actions at each step? __ _
- 2. Did the operator seem certain at decision points? ______
- 3. Was the ooerator able to find needed equipment with the labels, abbreviations, symbols and location information provided him in the procedure? _ _ ___
4 Was the operator able to manage the emergency candition alth the information provided him?
- 5. Were the operator's contingency actions sufficient to address the symptoms? _ _ _ ____
- o. was tne operator acie to find referenced and branched procedures? __ __
ATTACHMENT 7.7 Page 2 of 9 AD.NP.16 REV.00
Form 06 Page _ of __ OBSERVATION CHECKLIST Discrepancy Yes No Sheet c S. UNDERSTANDABILITY
- 1. Did the operator appear to have pro-bl ems wi th any of the foll owing?
(a) reading the procedure ______ (b) reading figures and tables _ _ (c) determining values on figures and charts __ (d) complying with procedure step __ ___. (e) complying with caution and note statements _ __ (f) understanding the organization of the procedure __ ____ ___ II. Qp5RATIQNAk_(2RRECTN{SS A. PLANT COMPATIBILITY
- 1. Were the actions specified in the procedure able to be performed in the designated sequence? __
- 2. Were alternate success paths found which were not included in the procedure? _ ___
- 3. Was the operator able to obtain the necessary information from pl ant instrumentation as specified in the procedure? ______
- 4. Did the pl ant symptoms provide adecuate information for the ooerator to select the applicable procedure. __ ______
?. Were the procedure entry conditions approoriate for the plant symptoms seen by the ooerator?
ATTACHMENT 7.7 Page 3 of 9 AD.NP.16 REV.00
Form #6 Page _ of _ OBSERVATION CHECKLIST l-Discrepancy Yes No Sheet 0
- 6. Did the operator have to use informatic-or equipment not specified in the procedure to accomplish his task? _ __
, Ye Did the plant responses agree with the ! orocedure bar,is? ! 8. Were the instrum,ent readings and tolerances consistent with the instrument values stated in the Srocedure? _____ l 9. has the procedure physically compatible with the work situation (too bulky to held, binding wouldn't allow them to lay flat on the work space, no place to la',* the procedures down to use)? . Be OPER\ TOR COMPATIBILITY l I l 1. If time intervals were specified, were l the crocedure act, ion steps able to be l performed on tne plant within or at the desigrated time intervals? __ l 2. Could the procedure action steps be perforced by the operating shift?
- 3. If specific actions were assigned to individuel shift personnel, did the procedure appear to help coordinate the actions where necessary? _ __
i l ATTACHMENT 7.7 Page 4 of 9 l 'O.NP.16 REV.00 i
Form #6 Page _____ of CBSERVATION CHECKLIST Discrepancy Yes No Sheet #
- 4. Was the operating shift able to follow the designated action step sequences?
- 5. Was the operator able to do the following?
(a) find the oarticular step or
, set of steps when required- ____
(b) return to the procedure exit point without omitting steps when required ____ _ _ _ , . , _ _ (c) enter the branched procedure at the correct point _ (d) exit from the given EOP at the correct branch , 4 l [ Observer's Signature /Date Reviewed: Operations Supervisor /Date ATTACHMENT 7.7 page 5 of 9 AD.NP.16 REV.00
. Fora 07 Page _____ of _
DEBRIEFING CHECKLIST Precedure Titles _ ________ Prcccdure Not _____ ___' _ Proposed Rev: . Scopo of Validation: __ Oporator(s) Debriefed: __________ __ I. M1A}}(ITY A. LEVEL OF DETAIL Olscrepancy Yes No Sheet #
- 1. Was there sufficient information to perform the specified actions I
at each step? _ _ ______
- 2. Were the al ternatives adequately l described at each decision point? __ _
- 3. Coul d the operator use l abel ing, abbreviations, and location in-formation as provided in the procedure to find the needed equipment? _ __ _
f l 4. das the procedure missing in-l formation needed to manage the l emergency condition? _ _ __ _
- 5. Were the contingency actions I
sufficient to address tne symptoms? _ __ _ t ATTACHMENT 7.7 Page 6 of 9 AD.NP.16 REV.00 l
Form 07 Page __ of DEBRIEFING CHECKLIST Ciscrepancy Yes No Sheet c
- 6. Could the operator use the titles and numbers to find referenced and branched procedures?
- 8. UNDERSTANDABILITY
- 1. Was the procedure easy to read? __ _ _
- 2. Were the figures and tables easily and accurately read?
- 3. Were the values on figures and charts easily determined? _
- 4. Were caution and note statements complied with? -
- 5. Were the procedure steps complied with? , __
88* 9P.jR,111Q3f(_(Q33[Qlygg A. PLANT COMDATIBILITY
- 1. Were the actions specified in the procedure able to be performed in the designated sequence? __ __
- 2. Did the operator find alternate success paths not included in l
the procedure? _ __ l l
- 3. As specified in the procedures, could the operator obtain the necessary information from the plant instrumentation that is provided? ____
- 4. Did the plant symptoms provice adeouate information for the operator to select the applicable procedure? _ ___
ATTACHMENT 7.7 page 7 of 9
-AD.NP.16 REv.00
r
. Form 07 Page of _
DEBRIEFING CHECKLIST , Discrepancy l Yes No Sheet #
- 5. Were the procedure entry con-ditions appropriate for the plant symptoms seen by the operator?
- 6. Did the operator.have to use in-j formation or equipment not spec-ified in the procedure to accom- -
plish his tssk? _
- 7. Cid the plant responses agree with the procedure basis? ___
- 9. were the instrument readings and L tolerances consisterit with the instrument values stated in the procedure? __
?. Were,the procedures physically l
compatible with the work situa-tion (too bulky to hold, binding , wouldn't allow them to lay flat in work space, no place to lay the procedures down to use)? _ S. OPERATOR COMPATIBILITY
- 1. If time intervals are specified, were the procedure action steps able to be performed on the plant within or at the designated time i nte rv al s? __ _
- 2. dere the procedure action steps able to be performed by the op-erating shift?
l _ ______ l 3. If specific actions were assigned l to individual shift personnel, ! did the procedure help coordinate ! the actions where necessary? __ ______ ATTACHMENT 7.7 Page 8 of 9 AD.NP.16 REv.00
o' Form #7 Page _ ._ of , _ OEBRIEFING CHECKLIST Discrepancy Yes No Sheet c
- 4. Was the operating shift able to i follow the designated action step sequence? ____ _
l 5. Could the operator find the par-ticular step or set of steps when required? _ __ i
- 6. Could the operator return to the procedure exit point without omitting steps when required? __ _ ______
- 7. Could the operator enter the branched procedure at the correct point? __ ___
- 8. Could the operator exit from a given procedure at the correct branch? _ _
( l Debriefer's signature /Date Reviewed:
. Operations Suoervisor/Date l
ATTACHMENT 7.7 l Dage 9 of 9 AD.NP.16 REV.00
. - . - . . --. . . . - - . - . . - . . .--, .}}