ML20135A924

Rev 0 to OSP-0008, Verification & Validation of Emergency Operating Procedures

ML20135A924
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	04/23/1984
From:	GULF STATES UTILITIES CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20135A916	List: ML20135A921 ML20135A924 RBG-21-741, Forwards Rev 1 to Procedure OSP-0007, Preparation of Operations Section Procedures & Rev 0 to OSP-0008, Verification & Validation of Emergency Operating Procedures
References
OSP-0008, OSP-8, NUDOCS 8509100315
Download: ML20135A924 (33)

Text

__ ._-

l 1

l RIVER BEND STATION - UNIT 1 APPROVAL SHEET i STATION OPERATING PROCEDURES f NO. OSP-0008 TITLE VERIFICATION ann VAT Tn ATTov OF WFRrFNry OPFRATTMC PROrFntinFq  ;

~

SAFETT REIATED ACTIVITIES INVOLVED YES Q NO O REY. PACES INDEP. TECE NO. ISSUED REVIEW REVIEW APPROVED BY EFFICT INIT"ALS INITIALS SIGNATU 4  % DATE DATE ,

0 1 Thru 30 p 04/23/84 F

e, RECEl'/ED ApR c', i 1384 .

C\RC pseUrq s h hA  %, ,

y- en # o i

( ..,

31984 La s.ad seei*a 4 1

. u.4 o'eva'd / -

e hi , ,, , gd 4

h 8509100315 850826 PDR ADOCK 0 % 4]8 e . . . .

sces-co3

_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ __--.__. . _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ - . . . . . , . - _ . . . _ . _ - . ~ , - _ , _

! .e

I- 1 I I 8

. VERIFICATION AND-VALIDATION OF EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURES l l

l l TABLE OF CONTENTS l I I I

l l l SECTION PAGE NO. l l 1 l- 1.0 PURPOSE 2 l

l. l l_

2.0 REFERENCES

2 l-1 I l 3.0 DEFINITIONS 2 l l . l l 4.0 E0P VERIFICATION PROGRAM l l 4.1 Responsibilities 4~ l l .' 4.2 Preparation Phase 4 l

_l 4.3 Verification Phase 5 l

-l 4.4 Resolution Phase 5 l l 4.5 Documentation Phase 5 l l

1 l 5.0 E0P VALIDATION PHASE l l 5.1 General 6 l

l 3.2 E0P Validation Using Table-Top Method 9 l l 5.3 E0P Validation Using Walk-Through Method 11 l l 5.4 E0P Validation Using Simulator Method .

14 l 5.5 E0P Validation Using Real Performance Method 16 l l

l ENCLOSURES

[

l l

l Enclosure 1 - Example of a Simulator (Scenario) Script 18 l l -

I l ' ATTACHMENTS l

'l l l Attachment 1 - Verification Checklist 19 l l Attachment 2 - Procedure Discrepancy Form 23 l l Attachment 3 - Step by Step or Procedure Comments 24 l ,

-l Attachment 4 - Supporting Documentation of E0P Development 25 l l Attachment 5 - Procedure Flowchart 26 l l Attachment 6 - Observation Checklist 27 l l Attachment 7 - Debriefing Checklist 29 l l

l 1

l l-1 I

l l-I l' l l 1 -

1 l 1 I

I I

1 1

I I

I I

I I

i i

I i ll l l l l N/A l N/A ll OSP-0008 I REV - 0 l PAGE 1 0F 30 l l l 11 l l l l _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ .

~

l I'~1.0 PURPOSE I- l  !

l 1.1 The purpose of this procedure is to guide the administrative l process used in verification and validation of the Emergency 1 +

y Operating Procedures (EOPs). l

! L 2.0 REFERNCES I l .

I 2.1 Emergency Operating Procedures Implementation Guideline; 'INPO 82- l, ...

I 016. 'l,

.- ~

j c 2.2 Emergency Operating Procedures Verification Guideline; E0 PIA Draft l .

g 11/29/82. -

2.3 Emergency Operating Procedures Validation Guideline; E0 PIA Draft -j g 11/29/82. I i

2.4 ' Component Verification and System Validation Guideline; NITI'AC l g Draft 03/03/83. l 2.5 Administrative Procedure ADM-0003, Development, Control and Use of l g Procedures.

1 l

2.6 RBS Final Safety Analysis Report. .

• ['

i i g 3.0 DEFINITIONS l

l g 3.1 Comoonent Technical Accuracy - A characteristic of the system -

I l

g components which indicates the degree of consistency to source l documents.

[

l' 1

3.2 Component Verification - The evaluation performed to ensure I l

l consistency between the system component and its appropriate [

g. source documents.

l l

g 3.3 Control Room Simulator - A device which dynamically models the I

l

l. g plant functions as presented in the-control room. ,

l ,

[

l 3.4 l 7 l Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) - Plant procedures directing -l l g operato'r actions necessary to mitigate consequences of transients

;. and accidents that cause plant parameters to exceed reactor .l  ;

l. l g protection setpoints, engineered safety feature setpoints, or l

l other appropriate technical limits. , l l l I I

.3.5 Emergency Operating Procedure Guidelines (EPGs) - Guidelines that I l

l g . provide technical bases for the development of E0Ps.

- - l l .

g 3.6 Mock-Up - Static device (e.g., mode, photos, drawings) which I i

portrays control rocm hardware and configuration. l 'i l l

l i . I l

t I l i '

I I

l l

I I

I i i i 11 I I g N/A N/A g; OSP-0008 I

[ lREV - 0 PAGE 2 0F 30 l l

1 I ll l 1 I l

wo o_ v .

l . ..

I 3.7 Operator-Plant-Procedure-Training System (System) - To address l l Emergency Response Capabilities (ERC) the system components used l l to mitigate the consequences of an emergency conditions are as l l follows:

l

.3.7.1 The " operator" component consists of the control room l

'l operating crew. l l .

I

-l 3.7.2 The " plant" component consists of the plant as seen from 1. , .

l its control room with ~its instruments and controls. It may l l either include or not include a Safety Parameter Display I '-

l System (SPDS). l -

3.7.3 The " procedure" component consists of the E0P set and' '

l supporting system operating procedures (EOP Network). * -l l I i l 3.7.4 The " training". component consists of the operator training l

l. program. I

! I I l

3.8 Plant Drills Validation - ?!ethod of validation whereby actions are l

[ carried out during planned real events by control room operating l g personnel in response to cues from functional on-line equipment in- l l the control room. ,I

'g . .

I

[ 3.9 Real Event Operating Experience Review Validation - ?!sthod of

l l validation whereby unplanned real events which occur at.the l

[ utility's own plant as well as at other plants are reviewed and l l used by the utility to evaluate their system. ----

l 1  !

l 3.10 Simulator Performance Validation - ?!ethod of validation whereby- l l actions are carried out during a scenario'by control room l l operating personnel'in response to cues from simulated equipment l l in real, f ast, or slowed time.

• l I

l- I g 3.11 Source Documents - Documents or records upon which the system l l . components are based.

. l l- I .

l 3.12 Symptoms - Plant characteristics which directly or indirectly- [ .'

l indicate plant status.

..l '.

l -l l 3.13 System Operational Correctness - A characteristic of the system l-l which indicates the degree to which the components are compatible. I~

l I l 3.14 System Validation - The overall system (operator, plant, l l procedure, and training) evaluation performed to determine that l l the system components work together to accomplish the desired I j

' ,l results.

• l  ;

l I j l 3.15 Table-Top Validation '- !!ethod of validation whereby personnel I' j explain their step-by-step actions during a proposed scenario to .j

-l an observer / review team.

4 l

[

l .

4 I

l I 1

I I

l .

I l l ll l- 1 I q l N/A N/A .ll OSP-0008 'O l l REV PAGE 3 0F 30 l l l ll l l l .

1

. . . . 5=

o .

l I l 3.16 Valk-Through Validation - flethod of validation whereby personnel l l conduct a step-by-step enactment of their actions during a l l proposed scenario without carrying out the actual control l l functions. l l l l 3.17 Vriters Guide for E0Ps - A plant document that provides l l instructions for writing E0Ps using good writing principles. This l ,

l 1s provided in OSP-0009, " Author's Guide / Control and Use of l l Emergency Operating Procedures". j ,

I

• ~

I, l 4.0 E0P VERIFICATION PROGRA?! l l l -

l 4.1 Responsibilities -

l l l 4.1.1 l

l The Operations Supervisor has overall responsibility for .j l the E0P Verification Program. lp 1 l l 1. Upon request of the Operations Supervisor, Nuclear l l Plant Engineering will perform a technical accuracy l l evaluation. l l . 1

' I l 2. Upon request of the Operations Supervisor, the l l Training Supervisor vill perform the training-to- l procedure interface evaluation.

l l

l

'~

• l l l l l 4.2 Precaration Phase l l l l

) l The preparation phase consists of the following activities. l l l I 4.2.1 l Designate Personnel l

l 1

l The managers wil'1 appoint the necessary personnel as l l evaluators to conduct the verification. Personnel should l .

j, be appointed based on operating experience and l l understanding of plant hardware, the EPGs and the writers l l guide.

l

! l l

l l 4.2.2 Obtain and Review the E0P Source Documents l (*

l *

.-l '

l The E0P Source Documents listed in the Reference Section .l l will be reviewed by the personnel conducting the j, l verification phase. These documents will be reviewed for l l completeness, correctness, and applicability. l l l I

j l 4.2.3 Review and Update the Evaluation Criteria l

! I I

l l The designated personnel will review and update the l j Verification Checklist (Attachment 1) with reference to l l their review of the E0P Source Documents. The update may l l include additions, deletions, or modifications to the l l evaluation criteria. The updated list will then be l l forwarded for revision per AD}!-0003.

l l

1

! l

' l I

I l l ll 1 1 I l N/A N/A ll OSP-0008 l REV - 0 l PAGE'4 0F 30 l l l ll l l l s .

a

l l

l 4.3 Verification Phase l l 1

' l In the verification phase the evaluator will: l l l

[ 4.3.1 Make a general review of the E0P using the procedure- l

-l specific portion of the evalution criteria, source l

~ l douments, and all procedures-related justifying remarks l l provided by the writer (in a format as shown in Attachment l y

-l- 4). l. .

l

• 1 '-

' l 4.3.2 Record his comments in a format as presented in Attacliment I l 3 for procedure discrepancies, including those  ! -

l discrepancies which he feels are not adequately explained I l in any justifying remarks provided by the writer. I

[ -

L l 4.3.3 Make a step-by-st'ep review for the E0P using the step- l l caution-note-specific portion of the evalution criteria, l l source documents, and any justifying remarks for each step l l provided by the writer (in a format as shown in Attachment l l 4). l I I l 4.3.4 Record his comments in a format as presented in Attachment l l 3 for step-by-step discrepancies, including those ,

I l discrepancies which he feels are not adequately explained l l in any justifying remarks provided by the writer. ' '

. l I I l 4.3.5 Forward his comments to the E0P writer. l l -

l l

4.4 Resolution Phase l l l l In the resolution phase, the E0P writer will: l l 1 l 4.4.1 Review the evaluator's comments and resolve them either by l l revising the E0P or by furnishing justifying remarks on l l Attachment 2. l l l l

4.4.2 Update applicable supporting E0P documentation. l ,

1 I 4.4.3 f l Forward the evaluator's comments, the Procedure Change .. l l Notices and the' updated documentation of his resolutions of

~ . l l the evaluator's comments to the Operations Supervisor. l.

4.5 Documentation Phase 1- l l The documentation developed throughout the process will be l l

maintained. It will consist of the verification and resolution l

l phases, represented by the comments of the evaluators and E0P l l -writers.

l '

1 I I I 1 l 1 l l I I I I I I i ll l l l l N/A. [ N/A ll OSP-0008 l REV - 0 [PAGE 5 0F 30 l

I I il l I I

• T ~

O

_ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _,.__.+o. _ _

4

. I I l 5.0 EOP VALIDATION PROCEDURE l l I

[ 5.1 General

.l l I

.l' In general, the planning phase consists of the following l l . activities:

l l l .

l 5.1.1 Planning for the Validation l l

l ..,, -

l 1. Designate Evalua3or(s) - When a given validation l l method has been designated as being the most effective l~

4 l' method for a given validation session, evaluators who 1 j are skilled in plant operations, procedures, training l j' and test evaluation methods will be appointed. I l .

1-l 2. Develop the Test. Plan - A test plan will be develop?d l l which requires consideration of the following: I l

l l a. Purpose of conducting the validation l i

' l I

l 1) Specific objective (s) to be tested l l

I l 2) Specific principles and guidances to be I

'l tested -

1 l ' ~

. l b.

Selection of scenarios required to satisfy l

I

l validation objectives to be tested l l -

l i

l c. How EOPs are to be used l I

l l d. Rules for plant personnel and evaluator behavior l l during validation l

l '

1 p e. Detection and classification of errors l l

l l f. Administration of test plan l l

-5.1.2 Preparing for Validation Trail l l

l l 7 l '.

l In general, the preparation phase consists of arranging for -- .

I l and preparing equipment, materials and personnel necessary 1.-

l for the validation. Specific guidance for preparing such l l- method is given in the section for that method (5.2, 5.3, I l 5.4 or 5.5). l

[ -

1. l l Equipment Preparations - Evaluators will be l responsbile for a'tranging for a seminar room for

.l .

l

+

l table-top or arranging for a convenient time in the (

l control room for walk-through or preparing videotape I l equipment for simulator.

, l l

I I

I i

1 l

l-1 I

I I ll 1 1 I

[ N/A. l N/A ll OSP-0008 - l REV - 0 lPAGE 6 0F 30 l

;I I II I I I g (__,, _ , , _ _ __ .__m---

l l

' l 2. Material Preparations - Evaluators will collect E0Ps, l l tech specs, and other source documents for a table- l l top. Observation and/or debriefing sheets will be l

' l modified for the appropriate method. Appropriate I l event scenarios will be selected.from those already l l written. I l

l 3. Personnel Preparations - Plant personnel needec for 1-l l the validation will be trained on the E0Ps prior to .l., -

l the validation t.est. -.

l l 5.1.3 Conduct Validation Trial l -

l l I

j 1

l In general, the validation phase consists of the following l l activities:

' l .-

1 I l 1. Brief Evaluators - The evaluators ' leader shall review l i

l

-l with the evaluators the responsibilities of each l l member, clarifying all questions concerning such I l . things as use of forms or use of videotape. I I I l 2. Brief Plant Personnel - Evaluators will: i I I a.

l Review the overall objective and techniqued of ,, *l l the validation with the plant personnel who are l l participating I I I l b. Review the use of the observation and debriefirig l l forms with the plant personnel l I

l l c. Review the event sequences and scenarios and any l l underlying assumptions about them. l I

I l

3.

[- Conduct Validation Trial - Each validatica trial will l l be conducted in accordance with the specific guidance l

, j provided for each method (5.2, 5.3, 5.4 or 5.5). I

! l  !

j l a. Validation methods used for the initial, approved ..

I f l set of E0P's will include the Simulator method. .-l '.

l -!

g b. Validation of subsequent revisions do not I-l necessarily require the simulator method. , 1 I

I l 5.1.4 Analyze Results l

I I

l In general, the analysis phase consists of the following

• i l activities: 1

! l- j I

{ j 1. -l Debrief Operators - After each validation phase is [

l completed, an in-depth debriefing between evaluators i l and participating plant personnel will be conducted. l l The debriefing should occur immediately after the l

l. completion of the validation phase in. order to 1 i

' i I l

1 l l ll l l I l

[ N/A N/A ll OSP-0008 l l [REV - 0 PAGE 7 0F 30 i

{ l I 11 I l

I l l

-_______-___Y"____~ . _ _ _ _ = _ ..A _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ . .G."

l l l maximize the effectiveness of the debriefing (see l l Attachment 7). l I I l The evaluators shall l I I l a. Brief the plant personnel on the purpose and I

_l objectives for debriefing. l l

l Plant personnel shall: I ., .

~

Record on Procedure Discrepancy Form (Attachment 2) l present problems and discrepancies which they l l identified during the validation. These verbal l l explanations may be augmented by videotape l l displays of problems. '1--

I  !

l 1) Present possible causes for problems. I I I l 2) Present potential solutions to problems. I I I l Evaluators shall l l

I l a. Present problems and discrepancies identified l l

l l during validation. Verbal explanations may be ,, ,I

' l augmented by videotape displays. l

[

l l

l 1) Interview plant personnel as to possible l

' l cause(s) for problem (s). -

l l

l l 2) Interview plant personnel as to possible l l solution (s) for problem (s). l I

I l 3) Present explanation (s) of possible causes l

} and potential resolutions.

I I

l l 2. Evaluate Findings - After the debriefing, data l l gathered from the validation and debriefing must be l l analyzed, synthesised, and summarized. E0P l f l discrepancies will be documented and forwarded to the -l l Operations Supervisor. .I l

5.1.5 l-l Resolve Discrepancies

, l i

I l The Oparations Supervisor shall:

1.

I

1. I  !

l Review E0P discrepancies and potential resolutions I l l which are forwdeded to him by the evaluators. I I

I l a. Have the E0P's or other Operations Section '

l l Procedures revised per AD:1-0003. l I '

l l b. Recommend necessary plant modifications to the

(

l Plant Technical Supervisor, l i

I I

I I i 11 1 I I

[ N/A l N/A ll OSP-0008 l REV - 0 PAGE a Or 30 1 I I ll l 1 I

.* l 1 c.

g Recommend necessary training program changes to l g the Training Supervisor. l I

5.2 E0P Validation Using Table-Top Method l I

The table-top method consists of four phases: planning, l g preparation for and conducting the evaluation, and resolving the l g E0P discrepancies which are found during the evaluation. l l

S.2.1 Planning the Table-Top Method I

l~~

l ..

The planning phase consists of the following activities: -

1. Designate Evaluator (s) - When the table-top meth'cd has i I I g been designated as being the most ef fective method for - 1 g a given validation session, table-top evaluators who l l g are skilled in plant operations, procedures, training i g and test evaluation methods will be appointed. l l

g 2. Review the Test Plan - As part of planning for a l

• table-top, a test plan will be developed. Developing l g a test plan will require consideration of the I j following:

,l l I g a. Purpose of conducting the validation '

I l

[ 1) Specific objective (s) to be tested l j -

I g 2) Specific principles and guidances to be l g tested l

1 I

l g b. Selection of scenarios required to satisfy l l

' g validation objectives to be tested l j.

c. I g How E0Ps are to be used I i i

d. I g Rules for plant personnel and evaluator behavior l

during validation ,

l  ?

i

e. .-1 '.

g Detection and classification of errors .l l

l-l

f. Administration of test plan , l l

g 5.2.2 Preparing for the Table-Top I

! l l

l I g After the resources to support the table-top have been j

selected, the evaluator (s) will

l l

1. I Arrange for use of required E0Ps, specifications, and (

s 1

related technical documentation. l g

- l i

2. l g Arrange for the use of room equipped with adequate l g surface to layout E0Ps and related documentation. 'l l

I I

I I

N/A I

N/A Il i I l ll OSP-0008 g

l lREV - 0 PAGE 9 or 30 l l l l1 I I I l K- '

.~ _. .. . . . . . _ . _ . _ _ ~ - - . . . _ - . .

l I l 3. Modify the Observation Checklist of Attachment 6 for '

l

' l , the table-top.

l l l l 4. Review event scenarios already developed and select l l those which are appropriate for the table-top method. l I I

'l S. Arrange for the use of required plant personnel,  !

l giving consideration to the advantages / disadvantages l  ;,

.g. of the following arrangements that can be used with l, the table top: ,

l I,

I l

a.

One-on-One - One member of the observer /re' view l l team and one plant person. -

l l l l b.

l One-on-Crew - One member of the observer / review -I l team and an operating crew. l I I c.

l Team-on-Crew - The observer / review team and tho' l l operating crew

• l l

l-l d. Team-on-One - The observer / review team and one l l plant person. I l  !

l 5.2.3 Conducting the Table-Top

.l l

l l 1. The evaluators' leader shall:

l l

I l a. Provide the evaluators with a copy of the E0Ps to l l be validated and debriefing forms l I

I l b. Review with the entire team how the table-top l l will be conducted l l -

1 p c. Review the overall objective and technique of the l l table-top with plant personnel who are taking l l part in the validation l

I

d. l T l Provide the plant personnel with a copy of the I f g E0Ps to be validated. ..l I

e. *I g Review the use of the debriefing form with the (-

g plant personnel , l 1

'g f. Provide plant personnel and evaluators with a I

'l copy of the scenarios . l l

g. .l l Review the event-sequences and scenarios and any l l underlying assumptions about them.

l ,

l -

I

.g 2. Plant personnel shall:

l l

a. I r l Use the E0Ps as the evaluator (s) lead them [

l through the scenario.

1 1

I I

I I

N/A I il i I I N/A ll OSP-0008 l l lREV - 0 PAGE 10 0F 30 l l l l1 1 I I l .

, ... . . . m- ' ~

l . ..

L t

-l l  !

l. l 3. At the end of the scenarios, the evaluator should: l l l l a. Interview the plant person (s) to find out if the l l E0Ps are understandable and sensib'a terms of l l operating the plant (see Attachmen- i' l I I l b. Administer a test to the plant po. an(s) to l ,

.l assess how effectively the participants used tho' l l E0Ps to complete the scenario. l., -

l . I l c. Discuss the results of the test as another l~ 'l l mechanism for uncovering information about'the I l effectiveness of the E0Ps -

l

~'

l l l- d. Document discrepancies which are found in the .l .

l EOPs on a' Comment Sheet (Attachment 2).  !

I I l e. Forward a copy of discrepancies to the Operations l l Supervisor. I I I l 3.3 EOP Validation (* sing Walk-Through Method .1

-l l l S.3.1 Review the Test Plan ,l

.I . l l As part of planning for a. walk-through, a test plan will 'be l l developed. Developing a test plan will require l

_l consideration of the following: l l

~

l l l 1. Purpose of conducting the validation .

l I I l a. Specific objective (s) to be tested l l l l b. Specific principles and guidances to be tested I I l

.l 2. Selection of scenarios required to satisfy validation l l objectives to be tested , l l l l 3. How E0Ps are to be used l f.'

l -

.-l ',

l 4. Rules for plant personnel and evaluator behavior .l l during validation l,

! , I

-l 5. Detection and classification of errors. l i l l l 6. Administration of test plan. l l l l '5.3.2 Preparing for the Walk-Through l l 1 l 1. After the resources to support the walk-through have I been selected, the evaulator(s) will:

l l l l l a. . Provide the plant personnel with a copy 'of the l l E0Ps to be validated. l l l l l l l ll l l 1

-l N/A l N/A 'll OSP-0008 l REV - 0 PAGE 11 0F 30 l l l ll I I I

. . . . - _-_- = - --_ _ _ u

-l l

-l b. Review the use of the observation and debriefing l

.l forms with the plant personnel l l 1 l c. Review with event sequences and scenarios and any l l underlying-assumptions about.them. l I I l d. Arrange for use of specific type of equipment. l ,.

-l .

I  :

l l 1) Real equipment l. .

l I

l I, '

l 2) Dynamic simulators.

l -

.l I

~

l 3)  ?!ock-up -

l l  !

l ~4) Operator auxiliary equipment.(e.g..- - 1.,

l rerpirators, protective clothing, radiation l l detectors).if required l l I l 5) Audio / Visual (A/V) equipment l l -

l l e. Arrange for the use of required personnel l l 1 l 1) Real operating crew l-1 ,I l l 2) Non-operating specialists

l I I l 3) 0bserver/ review team l l ,

l 4) A/V equipment l I

l l f.  ?!odify the Observation Checklist (Actachment 6) l l for the walk-through. l l

l p g. Review event scenarios already developed and l l select those which are appropriate for the walk- l l through method. . l l

l l 5.3.3 Conducting the Walk-Through  ?'

1 l

I

1. -l '.

l The evalustors' leader shall: l l

' l

a. l-l Review with the evaluators the-responsibilities {

l of each member, clarifying all questions l

l. concerning use of forms or use of videotape. l l

l l b. Review the overall objective and techniques of l ,

the walk-through dith plant personnel who are l

l- i l participating in the walk-through. l ,

I I

l c. Assure' Attachment 6 is completed l

l l  !

I I

I I

l 1

I I

I I Il- 1 I I N/A. l- N/A ll. OSP-0008 l REV - 0 lPAGE 12 0F 30

! l l l 1 --- 1 I I ,

_._._.__--.--u---------Y-

.;~ I

• I

.l '2. -Plant personnel shall: I

'l l l l .a. Walk / talk through actions they would take during l i

'l specific situations covered by the event- _l l

l seqence(s)'and scenario (s). , I l~

l.

l- b. Describe actions they are taking l l

I l c. Identify information sources used to take actions I l I ., '

l d. Identify con.trols used to carry out actions,, I '

l -l '

expected system response (s), how response (s) 1 -

l

' -l verified..and action (s) to be taken if l l response (s) did not occur.

l l

'l 3. 'l.

Evaluator 1 shall:

I

'l I

l a. Direct walk-through l I

I l b. Coordinate efforts of plant personnel, evaluators l l and video team l-1 I

l c.

I Review scenario (s) ,I I

l d. Ask appropriate "what if" questions l l

l l e. Note problems and discrepancies encountered by l l plant personnel. ~

l I .

I l 4. Evaluator 2 shall: ~l l

I l a. Piet movement pattern of plant personnel using l l layout diagrams l- l l

l b. Track plant personnel usage of E0Ps I

l' I

l c. .

Record discrepancies and problems encountered by l l plant personnel on Attachment 2. l l f

d. -l l Ask appropriate "what if" questions .l

' s I

5.-

1-l Evaluator 3 (if used) shall: , l l

a. 1 l Track plant personnel usage of E0Ps. l 1

l b.

I Record discrepancies and problems encountered'by l l , plant personnel on Attachment 2.

l -l

c. 1 l Coordinate A/V with videotape crew I i

d. 1 l Ask appropriate "what it" questions. '

(

l l- I 1 1-

, I I l

! , I I ll 1 I .I l N/A l N/A- ll OSP-0008 l REV .0 lPAGE 13 0F 30 l l I 1I I I l l

~

_-- x

t

.l I

g. 5.4 E0P Validation Using Simulator !!ethod l 1 I l

3.4.1 Select Simulator Scenarios l l l l -In selecting scenarios to be run on the simulator, the l

[ planning members of the validation team will examine the l g entire set of scenarios which had been constucced for all l l methods of validation, taking into consideration the l ,

g following:

l,, .

1. Systems / subsystems used in the scenarios constructed j' -

l 1 g 2. System / subsystems differences between the plant and l g simulator l l - L.

l

3. Systems /aubsystems which are of primary importance, l -l l secondary importance, or ' as importance in managing l j g the scensrio event l l

4 I

1

! l See Enclosure 1 for an example of a Simulator Script.- l l

i 5.4.2 .1 g Delineate Expected Operator Actions l

' l '

.l l Af ter the validation team has selected its scenarios for l i

l validation by the simulator method, it will identify the' '

l i l procedures which should be exercised by each scenario. The l l validation team will identify the steps within each l g procedure which the oporator could follow in managing ,the- .

l i

g emergency event. A list of expected operator actions based l

. on this potential path will be prepared as an aid in l l preparing the Observer Checklist (Attachment 6). l 5.4.3 Develop Validation ?!easurement Techniques -

l 1

I l Techniques for measuring and recording operator performance j i g will be prepared by planning personnel and used by j l l Observers / Analysts which will permit the following analyses l-g for each scenario: -

l  ;

l "

g 1. Analysis of the operator's ability to control several ..l '

g plant parameters 1 j,

2. Comparsion of discrete operator actions to the *

previously prepared list of expected operation actions [

)

l

, g 3. Comparsion of the time to per' form either a discrete l l

action or a process control task to previously 2

g l

} g established time frame standards.

l l ,

l l

[ The manual validation techniques of videotape and use of l

l g Observer Checklists teill be prepared for use in the

)  ; validation phase. l

! ' l l

1

. I i l '

1 I

I N/A l

N/A ll l l .

l l l gl OSP-0008 l l REV - 0~ [PAGE 14 0F 30 l I I ll l l l l

l l 2

.----__--_-_----1----.------...-------.-----------

l  !

l 5.4.4 Select Operating Crew l I I l Subsequent to the initial validation program operating crew l l personnel may be rotated throughout the various validation l l trials. For any given validation trial, enough crews will l l be selected and used such that one crew may be debriefed, I l while another is on the simulator. This will allow l l immediate operator debriefing and efficient use of l simulator time.

.l l , ,, .

I I l

5.4.5 Conduct Crew Familiarlzation

• I i  ! -

l Prior to their session at the simulator, the operating l l crews to be used for the actual validation trials will be I l familiarized with the new procedures during plant training -

.l _

l sessions. In addition, differences which exist between l l plant and simulator characteristics such as human factors l l design, operations design and workspace design will be l l discussed. l I I l 5.4.6 Conduct Operator Orientation l 1 I l The final preparation for the actual simulator scenario l l runs will be crew orientation on the simulator. An *l l Observer / Analyst will be assigned for each operator l l participating, and copies of the simulator observer forms l l will be amended separately for each. l l -

1 l

5.4.7 Conduct Operator Simulator Runs l l  !

l Prior to each scenario run, Observers / Analysts will be l l standing by with materials such as previously prepared l l observer forms, videotape, and/or computer data collection I j tapes. Each scenario should be performed only once by one 1 l of the crews. l I

I l Whether or not videotape is used during the run, copies of l l the Observer Checklists (Attachment 6) will be used by l r

[ Observers /Anlysts to note the cperators' actions during the .l ',

l scenario. A copy of.the form for each scenario should .l l reflect the actions of each participant, and it will be l,

[ used for debriefing the operators. If desired, a , I l Debriefing Checklist (Attachment 7) may be used to document l l the debriefing.

l 1

I I I I

I I

I l -

1 I

I I

I 1

I I

I I

I I

l l

N/A l ll l 1 l l l N/A ll OSP-0008 l REV - 0 PAGE 15 0F 30 l 1 I II i i I

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _. __ ____.__.__._A _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1 I

l 5.5 E0P Val _idation Using Real Performance ?!ethod l

I l 5.5.1 Planning the Debriefing l l

l The planning phase consists of the following activities: l l

l 1.

Designate Evaluator (s) - After a real emergency event l l has occurred on site, real performance method I l evaluators who are skilled in plant operations, l . ,, -

l procedures, training and test and evaluation methods I l will be appointed. I I

l 2.

Notify Control Room Personnel - Control room operators I l who had participated in the recent emergency event on l l

site will be notified of the debriefing aimed at "l~

l gathering information on the usability and operational l l correctness of E0Ps. l I

l 5.5.2 Conducting the Debriefing I l I

' l l

l The debriefing should occur as soon as possible af ter the l l

j emergency has been brought under control in order to l maximiae the effectiveness of the debriefing. ,l l

l 1.  !

The evaluators ' lead shall: l l

l a. l Brief plant personnel on the purpose and l l ,

objectives for debriefing -

l l l l l b. l Present problems and discrepancies which they had l l

' l identified during the real event l l

l l c. Present possible causes for problems l

} l j d. Present potential solutions to problems I l I l

l e. l l I Generate / forward discrepency forms as necessary, l ,

l 2. Evaluators shall: I f

l 1 1 l a. -l Present other E0P problems and discrepancies  !-

l j l related to the real event which also have been identified. I

I l l l b. I l l Interview plant personnel as to possible cause(s) for problem (s) l

• l l l c. Interview plant personnel for potential l g l solution (s) to problem (s) l l l d. Present explanation (s) of possible causes and I

! l l potential solutions I l l 1 1 i I 1

1 N/A I il i I i

l l N/A ll OSP-0008 I lREV - 0 PAGE 16 0F 30 I I il l I l

l

_ _ __ ww - '

l I l e. Review with the entire team how the table-top l l will be conducted l I I l f. Complete Debriefing Checklist (Attachment 7) l i I l "Ey" l I I '

l I I

I..

I

,. I ~

l 1 -

1 I I I l .I, I I I I.

I I I I I I I

I 1 I l

I

.I I

l I I

I I

I l ~

l i I I

I

' I I 1

I l '

l I

I I

I I

I I

I .

I '

I .

I '

-I I

I

.I I-I - l I

I I

I I .

I I

- I 1

I I

I I

I .

I I

l '

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I ll t i I l N/A l N/A ll OSP-0008 l REV - 0 '

PAGE 17 0F 30 l l l ll l 1 I

.m _

'l- I- l L 1 I -

I

! l ENCLOSURE - 1 l EXA'!PLE OF A SItfULATOR (SCENARIO) SCRIPT l l 1 l

-I l- l PURPOSE: To evaluate the transitation from E0P-0001, Step 3.2.2 to E0P-0011. l

I I I I I l_ SCENARIO

An ?!SIV closure is initiated at 100*.' power, with multiple control rods l

-l failing to scram. The transient upsets the power grid and causes a loss l

-l of of f-site power. Reactor power is reduced to approximately 40*. from l l rod insertion and loss of reactof recire pumps. l l l.

I I l SI!!ULATOR SEQUENCE l.

I I

'l I l TI?!E l

l EVENT NO. HR:?!!N:SEC ?fALFUNCTION DESCRIPTION INTENT l l

1 l N/A 00:00:00 IC NO, 6 100*. Power EOL N/A [

l l

l l- 1 00:01:00  ?!AL NO. 63, 71  !!SIV CLOSSURE Initiate ATVSl l 60 CRD's Fail Condition l l 1 -

1 l 2 00:01:09  !!AL 83 Trip 500KV Supplies Loss of l .

l I

Off Site Powerl  !

' I 3 00:01:10  !!AL 40 Turbine Trips Loss of all l In Overspeed Normal AC Pwel l

l l 4 00:01:40 N/A Reactor Power l l 'At Approx 40*, l l -

1 ,

l l

l l

l l

l .

l I

I l -

l 1 l 1 l

i I

I I

I l

l l

l  !

l I

I  ;

I '

l i

l

-l l

l l

l~ -

l l '

l I '

l I

I ll l l l l ENCLOSCRE - 1 PAGE 1 0F 1 ll OSP-0008 1 l REV - 0 l PAGE 18 0F 33 l l- I ll l l l

1 I I

I I I l ATTACHMENT - 1 l VERIFICATION Cl!ECKLIST l l l

. l l 1.0 CIIECK IF CRITERIA IS MET l l l l Area Reference l l l l l 1.1 Procedure Specific l

l 1.1.1 Written Correctness

• l l 1. Legibility l l a. Are the printed borders visible on all procedure l-l Pages? l l b. Are the text, tables, graphs, figures and charts l l legible to the evaluator?

, l l l l 2. E0P Format Consistency l l a. Do the following sections exist in each E0P7 I l Section 1 - TITLE l l l Section 2 - ENTRY CONDITIONS l l l, Section 3 - OPERATOR ACTIONS l I

l b. Is the operator actions section presented in a l l dual column? l l c. Is the page layout consistent with the sample

• l l page format? l l

1 l 3. Indentification Information l

a. Is the procedure title descriptive of the purpose l of the procedure 7 l l b. Does the cover sheet provide the correct: l l 1) Procedure Title? l l 2) Procedure Number? l l 3) Unit Number? l l '

4) Revision Number? l l 5) Number of Pages? l l c. Does each page contain the correct: l l 1) Procedure Designator? l l 2) Revision Number? l l 3) PAGE _ 0F _ Numbers?

• l l d. Does the procedure have all its pages in the l l correct order? l l

l l 1.1.2 Technical Accuracy l l 1. Licensing Commitments l

l a. llave licensing commitments opp 11 cable to E0Ps l

l been addressed? VEG 3.3.5 l l b. Where differences exist between the licensing l

l commitments and the E0Ps, is there documentation l l to explain the difforences? VEG 3.3.5 l 1

l l

l l

l 1 l

l 1

l ll l l l l ATTACllMENT - 1 l PAGE 1 0F 4 ll OSP-0008 l REV - 0 l PAGE 19 0F 30 l l- 1 ll l l l

, . . i l

. i l

l I I  ;

I I I I ATTACHMENT - 1 l VERIFICATION CHECKLIST (Continued) l 1 i I

l Area Reference l i

i 1.2 Step, Caution, Note-Specific l

l 1.2.1 Written Correctness l .,

l 1. Information Presentation l l a. Are instruction steps numbered correctly? l l b. Are operator-optional sequence steps identified? l l c. Are instruction steps constructed so that: l-l 1) Steps deal with only one idea? l l 2) Sentences are short and simple? I l 3) Operator actions are specifically stated? , l l 4) Objects of operator actions are specifically l l stated? I i l 5) Objects of operator actions are adequately l l l stated? l l l 6) If there are three or more objects, they are l l listed? And is space provided for operator l l check off7 l l 7) Punctuation and capitalization are proper?

• l l 8) Abbreviations are correct and understandable l l to the operator? l l d. Do instruction steps make proper use of logic l l l structure?

l l e. When an action instruction is based on receipt of l an annunciator alarm, is the setpoint of the l l l alarm setpoint? l i

l f. Are precautions and cautions used appropriately? l l g. Are precautions and cautions properly placed? l l h. Are precautions and cautions constructed so that: -

l l l 1) They do not contain action?

l l 2) They do not use extensive punctuat!,on for l l clarity?

l l 3) They make proper use of highlighting? l l 1. Are notes properly used? l l k. Are notes worded so that they do not contain

• l l action instructions? l l l 1. Are numerical values properly written? l l m. Are acceptance values specified in such a way l l that mathematical operations are not required of l l the user?

l l , n. Is a chart or graph provided in the procedure for l j l necessary operator calculations?

l j l o. Are units of measurement in the E0P the same as j t

l those used on equipment? l l '

l l

l l

l l l l

l l l

l l ATTACHMENT - 1 l

l PAGE 2 0F 4 11 ll OSP 0008 I

l REV - 0 I

l PAGE 20 0F 30 d

l l

1 1 II I I l l

l

o .

l 1 l

1 l l

l ATTACHMENT - 1 l VERIFICATION CHECKLIST (Continued) l l

l i

l l Area Reference l l l l 2. Procedure Referencing and Branching l l a. Do the referenced and branched procedures identi- l l fied in the E0Ps exist for operator use? l l b. Is the use of refen;encing minimized 7 1

) c. Are referencing and branching instructions l l correctly worded? l-l 1) " Proceed to" l l 2) " Refer to" l l d. Do the instructions avoid routing users past ., l l important information such as cautions preceding l l steps? VEG 3.2.5 l l

l l 1.2.2 Technical Accuracy l l 1. Source Documents l l a. Are E0P/EPG differences: VEG 3.3.2 l l 1) Documented? {

l 2) Explained? l l l b. Is the EPG-technical foundation changed by the l

l E0P step, caution, or note: VEG 3.3.2 l l 1) Elimination? l l 2) Addition? l

3) Organization?

l

4) Alteration? l l c. Are correct plant specifics incorportated per EPG7 VEG 3.3.2 l l 1) Systems? l l 2) Instrumentation? l l

3) Limits? l

, l 4) Controls? l l l 5) Indications? l l d. Are the entry conditions of EPG listed correctly? VEG 3.3.1 l l e. If additional entry conditions have been added. l l l are they: VEG 3.3.1 l l l 1) Unique entry conditions? l

2) Excessive l

l l

I 1

l 2. Quantitative Values l l l

a. Do the quantitive values, including tolerance l l l bands, used in the E0P comply with applicable E0P l l l source document? VEG 3.3.3 l l b. Where EPG values are not used in E0P, are the E0P l l -

values computed accurately? VEG 3.3.3 l l l .

c. When calculations are required by the EOP, are [

l l equations presented with sufficient information l l l for operator use? VEG 3.3.3 l l '

l 1

l l l

l l

l ll l l l l l ATTAC10fENT 1 l PAGE 3 0F 4 ll OSP 0008 l rey . 0 l PAGE 21 0F 30

' (

I i 11 l l l

. I I I

I 1 l l ATTACH?!ENT - 1 l VERIFICATION Cl!ECKLIST (Continued) l I I i

l l Area Reference l l 1 1 3. Plant Hardware l l a. Is the plant hardware specified in the E0P l l available for operator use? VEG 3.3.4 l l 1) Equipment?

• I I 2) Controls? l l 3) Indicators? l-l 4) Instrumentation? I I

I I _

l

! l Signature of Reviewer / Evaluator l l

l l

l i l I

I i

! I I

l l l

I I

I -

l l

l I

I I

i l

l I

I I

I I

I l -

• 1 l 1 I

i l I

i l

i l

I I

i -

l 1

I I

I I

! I l

l l

l 1

1 I

l

! I l

.I l l 1

1 I

I I -

1 I

I I

I I

I ll l I i l NITAC}CfENT - 1 l PAGE 4 0F 4 II OSP-0008 i REV - 0 I PAGE 22 0F 30 l l l l ll l l. I

, o /

. l l PDI) l 1 I PLANT l ATTACHMENT - 2 I l PROCEDURE DISCREPANCY FORM DATE l 1

, TRACKING i l STATUS: 1 I l l REVIEWER: I DATE: l

-l DATA l SOURCE: l l PROCEDLTE 0899 ~I l nut!BER: l GUIDELINE NUMBER:

I GUIDELINE l PROBLEM l AREA: CATEGORY:

l-l l STEP STEP l PANEL ID: l NUMBER: DESCRIPTION:

l l l DESCRIPTION 1 l OF DISCREPANCY: l l l l l 1 l

.I I I I I I 1

I Control Room / Simulator Difference '

l

_ l l RECOM'!ENDATION TO: l l

No Change Recommended Change 1 Irivest igat e l I

l I I I I I I -

I I -

1 l ,

l l ACTION l l RESOLLTION: l I I l l l l l , I I I I I I I l 'I

. l '

.I l l l 1 l l I I I I l l l ll l l 1

l ATTACHMENT

• 2 l PAGE 1 0F 1 ll OSP-0008 l REV - 0 l PAGE 23 0F 30 l l l lI l l l i* .,*

1 I I

I I ATTACH!!ENT - 3 I l i STEP-BY-STEP OR PROCEDURE COSD!ENTS I I

I I

I .SECTION DISCREPANCIES NOTED AND REFERENCED EVALUATION l l

1 1

I I

I I

I I

l -

I 1

I l l- l l

l I I I .. I I I I I I I i I

'l 1 l* I I 1 I I I 1 I I

! I I I

I i l l I I I I I l . I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I l i I I l i I I I I l i I I I l l 1 -

1 I l i I I

I ll l l I

l ATTACICIENT - 3 I PAGE 1 0F 1 ll OSP-0008 REV - 0 l

I l PAGE 24 0F 30 I l I Il- 1 I l

. I l l

1 I i ATTAC10 TENT - 4 i l SUPPORTING DOCU)!ENTATION OF E0P DEVELOP!!ENT l 1

I I

I I

l EPG STEP:

l I

I I

I I

l .,

j

• I I

I 1

l-I l E0P STEP:

1 I

- 1 I

I I

I I

l l

I I

I I

l i JUSTIFICATION OF DIFFERENCES:

I I

i I 1

l I 1 I I I

I l i E0P WRITER: 1 I

[ DATE: I I 1 I

' I I l I I I I I I I I I i I I i I I I I I l i I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I il i I i l ATTACIDIENT - 4 l PAGE 1 0F 1 II OSP-0008 i REV - 0 l PAGE 2S OF 30 I I I II I I I I

a -

. I I I-I 1

I l - ATTAClefENT - 5 - l -- PROCEDURE FLOWCHART l

l 4

1 l FOR I E0P- REV l i 1 E0P STEP CONDITIONS TO 1 PROCEDURE TRANSITION OF l I REQUIRE PROCEDURE' TRANSITION REFERENCING / BRANCHING TO I

-1 I I

.l: " l I l

.I l-I I I I

-1 . I I I 1 I I- 1 I I I I I I I I I I l- 1 l l I

I I

l I

I -

l 1 I I i 1 - 1 l 1 l l' I I I I l- ,

l ,

I I

. I' l 1 I I l' I I

~1. I l '

I I . 1.

~

't . . I g l

.ll .l-I l-

-l ~

I

~l.-

l l

1. :ll i i ATTACIC1EST '- 3 " ' I PAGE'l 0F.1' l .

I' .

l ll OSP-0008- 1~ REV - 0 1 -I _PAGE 26 0F 30 l 1 II I I i

. I I I I I

l ATTACHMENT - 6 l l OBSERVATION CHECKLIST l

l l

I l 1.0 Check where criteria is met; N/A any step not observed or not applicable to the l l specific Validation Method l

l 1.1 Useability l l

1.1.1 l l Level of Detail l 1. l Did the operator appear to have sufficient information to perform l l the specified actions at each step? l l 2. Did the operator seem uncertain at any division point?

l 3.

l-Was the operator able to find needed equipment with the labels, l l abbreviations, symbols and location information provided him? l l 4 Was the operator able to manage the emergency condition with the. l l information provided him?

5. l l Were the operator's contingency actions sufficient? l l 6. Was the operator able to find referenced or branched procedures? l l

l l 1.1.2 Understandability l 1. Did the operator appear to have problems with any of the l l

l following?

l a. Reading the typeface l l -

b. Reading figures and tables l l

l c. Interpolating values on figures and cha'rts

d. [

l Understanding E0P step

e. l l Understanding caution and note statements l

f. Understanding the organization of the E0Ps

,_ g . l Understanding the E0P step sequence

2. l

[

Did the operator's actions indicate that he had noticed l l emphasized items in the procedures?

l 3. Was the operator able to do the follcwing? l l a. Find the particular step or set of steps when required l

l -

b. Return to the procedure exit point without omitting steps l

l when required l l c. l-Enter the branched procedure at the correct point l d. Exit from the given E0P at the correct branch l 1 l l 1.2 Operational Correctness l l 1.2.1 Technical Correctness l l 1. Did the instructions provided to the operator appear to be l l

l appropriate for the emergency conditions?

l 2. l Were the procedure actions able to be performed on the plant l l in the designated sequence?

l 3. Did the operator find alternate source paths not in the E0Ps? l l 4. Were the procedure actions able to be performed on the plant at l

l the designated time intervals? l

_l S. .l Was the operator able to obtain the necessary information from l l

designated plant instrumentation when required by the procedure?

l 6. Did the plant symptoms direct the operator to the applicable l

l E0P by its entry condition? l l l 1 I I

I I ll 1 l l l ATTACHMENT - 6 .l PAGE 1 0F 2 ll OSP-0008 REV - 0 l l PAGE 27 0F 30 l l ll l l l l

L_ __

e s .

.' 1 I I

I I l

l A'ITACHMENT - 6 l

• OBSERVATION CHECKLIST (Continued) l I

l l

l 1.2.2 Compatibility l l 1. Did the E0P instructions appear to be compatible with the-l l operating shift manning? l l 2. Were the procedures actions able to be performed by the operating l l shift?

l l 3. Did the E0Ps appear to help coordinate the actions of the (

) operating shift? C l

l 4 Did the operator have to use responses or other equipment not l-l specified in the E0Ps to accomplish his task? l l S. Did the plant conditions seen by the operator correspond to what l l was in the E0P7 1 l 6. Were the instrument reading and tolerances consistent with the ,

l l instrument values stated ~in the 60P? l l 7. Were the operators able to distinguish the E0P from other l l procedures in the control room?

l l 8. Were the E0Ps physically compatible with the work situation l l (too bulky to hold, binding wouldn't allow them to lay flat- ]

l on the work space, no place to lay the E0Ps down to use)?. l l 9. Was the plant condition compatible with the action which the E0P l l.

~

directed to be performed at a time interval or specified time?- l l 10. Was the operating shift able.to follow the designated action l l step sequences?

[

]

' 11. Did the plant conditions allow the operator to correctly follow l the action step? l

, l l

l l Signature of Evaluator l I

l -

l

' l '

l l

i l l 1

l i I

'I .

l i

l l

.l

. I l

1 l

l

-l l

l l

l l

l l

- l l

l l

l l

l l

l 1

l l

l-I il 1 l l

ATTACHMENT - 6 l PAGE 2 0F 2- ll OSP-0008 l REV - 0 l 'PAGE.18 0F 30 l

-1 I ll l l- l A._

1 I I I I l l AITACHMENT - 7 [ DEBRIEFING CHECKLIST l 1 I

. I l 1.0 Check Where the Criteria is Met l l I l 1.1 Usability l l 1.1.1 Level of Detail l l 1. Was there sufficient information to perform the specified l l actions at each step? , l l 2. Were all alternatives explicit at each decision point? l l 3. Could the operator use labeling, abbreviations, and location l-l information as provided in the E0Ps to find the needed equipment? l l 4 Were the E0Ps missing information needed to manage the l l emargency condition? , l l 5. Were the contingency actions as stated in the E0Ps sufficient? l l 6. Could the operator use titles and numbers to find referenced l l or branched procedures? l l l l 1.1.2 Understandability l l- 1. Was the typeface easy to read? l l 2. Were the emphasized items noticed? l l 3. Were the figures and tables easily and accurately read?

• l l 4. Was interpolation of values on figures and charts difficult? l l 5. Were caution and note statements understood? l l 6. Was the organization of the E0Ps understood? l l 7. Was the EOP step understood? l

8. Were the step sequences understood? l

9. Could the operator find the particular step or set of steps l l when required? l l 10. Could the operato.r return to the procedure exit point without l l omitting steps when required? l l '

11. Could the operator enter the branched procedure at the correct l l point? l l 12. Could the operator exit from a given E0P at the correct branch? l-l l l 1.2 Operability Correct l l 1.2.1 Technical Correctness l l 1. Were the instructions appropriate for the emergency condition? l l 2. Were the procedure actions able to be performed on the plant l l in the designated sequence? l l 3. Did the operator find alternate success paths not in the E0Ps. l l 4. Was the procedure action able to be performed on the plant at l l the designated time intervals? l l 5. Could the operator obtain the necessary information from l l designated plant instrumentation when required by the procedure? l l 6. Did the plant symptoms direct the operator to the applicable l l E0P by its entry conditions? l l 1 l .

l l l l I I I l l

l 11 I l l r AITACICIENT - 7 l PAGE 1 0F 2 ll OSP-0008 l REV - 0 l PAGE 19 0F 30 l l l ll 1 I I

, = = . - -

1 i i 1

-l I i

1 A'ITACleIENT - 7 l DEBRIEFING' CHECKLIST (Continued) l l

I

, i I

1.2.2 Compatiability l

l l 1. kere the E0P instructions compatible with the operating shif t l

l manning?

l l 2. Were the procedure action able to be performed by the operating l ,

i l shift?

l l 3. Did the E0Ps help coordjnate the actions of the operating shift? l l 4 Did the operator have to use responses or other equipment not l I specified in the E0Ps to accomplish his task? l-l S. Did the plant conditions seen by the operator correspond to l l what was in the E0P? I l 6. Were the instrument readings and tolerances consistent with the . l l instrument values stated in the E0P? I l 7. Were the operators able to distinguish the E0P from other l l procedures in the control room?

l

.I 8. Were the E0Ps physically compatible with the work situation l

]i l (too bulkly to hold, binding wouldn't allow them to lay flat l l in work space, no place to lay the E0Ps down to use)? l l 9. Was the plant condition compatible with the action which the E0P l l

directed to be preformed at a time interval or specified time?, [

] 10. Was the operating shift able to follow the designated action l l step sequences?

l l

11. Did the plant conditions allow the operator to correctly follow l l the action step? l I

l I Signature of Evaluator l I

I I I I I

l l

g-

! i

. I l l

i I -  !

l 1 l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I Il i I I l~ A~1TACIDIENT - 7 l PAGE 2 0F 2 ll OSP-0008 l REV 0 PAGE 30 0F 30-l l I i ii I I I m _.1._ _ _-. _ _ . - ._____ _.

9 l l l RIVER BEND STATION l l PROCEDURE (CHANGE) TECH. SPEC. REVIEW FORM l 1 I l

PROC. NO. _ _

TITLE Ved c4 O\ Ad VAJohn M i l REV. NO. O 6er.

-s GA P=eA l i ~3 l REASON FOR PROCEDURE (CHANGE): l, 1

I

i N f(N - Me f(treclure , I l

l 1

-l i I I

I I - I l- .

1 l THE ACTIONS SPECIFIED BY THIS DRAFT PROCEDURE (CHANGE) DO NOT CONSTITLTE AN -l l UNREVIEVED SAFETY QUESTION (as defined in 10 CFR 50.59 (a) (2)) BECAUSE: l l ~ l l SAFETY RELATED ACTIVITIES INVOLVED YES l@ NO l l l 1 -

1 I

I l l3 The actions proceduralize regulatory requirements or commitments. . l l

l l @lTheactionsproceduralizelicenserequirements. ' l

\

l l l3lTheactionsincorporatestandardgoodpractices. l 1_ . I l l_l The actions represent an improvement over present procedures. l 1_ -

. I l l_) The actions do not affect procedures as described in the FSAR. l 1_ l-I l_l Other l 1

I l THE FOLLOVING ADDITIONAL, CROSS-DISCIPLINARY REVIEW IS RECOT! ENDED:

I I -

l l 1_ _ _ _

l-l l_l ALARA l_l Operations l_l Maintenance l_l Tech Staff l_j Chemistry l 1

I I _ _ ~

i l l_l Security l_l Administration l l Engineering l_l QA/QC l 1

l l l Plant Manager Othe-r MM I i

1 l PREPARED BY RO iTMen DATE yh3lr4 l 1

I l TECHNICAL REVIEVER CO.T!ENTS ON ABOVE:

l l AFA-A l

l IWM t. I I

I I

i lREVIEWEDBY b DATE // /9 [

l l

SOM-001 REV-1 -

ATTACsMENT.2 33

{ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION OF E0P DEVELOPMENT EPG STEP: PC/P-6 1

E0P STEP: E0P-0002, Step 3.4.4/C3.4.4 '

JUSTIFICATION OF DIFFERENCES: .

1. The suppression pool is a likely source of~ thermal energy in the containment and initiating suppression pool cooling can be effective in reducing containment pressure.

2. Suppresion pool cooling is operated in conjunction with the ventilation system to maintain containment temperaturo below 185 F and pressure <12 Psig.

( 3. There are no suppression pool sprays in RBS design.

4. There are no drywell sprays in RBS design.

DATE: 1/14/85 E0P WRITER: Q -

h 4

t D

. . - - .e,