ML20135A924
| ML20135A924 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1984 |
| From: | GULF STATES UTILITIES CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20135A916 | List: |
| References | |
| OSP-0008, OSP-8, NUDOCS 8509100315 | |
| Download: ML20135A924 (33) | |
Text
__
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
F 04/23/84 e,
RECEl'/ED ApR c', i 1384 C\\RC pseUrq h hA s
y-en #
o" i
31984 L
(
a4 s.ad seei*a u.4 o'eva'd /
1 d
e h,,,, g i
h 4
8509100315 850826 ADOCK 0 % 4]8 PDR 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 - Example of a Simulator (Scenario) Script 18 l
l I
l
' ATTACHMENTS l
'l l
l - Verification Checklist 19 l
l - Procedure Discrepancy Form 23 l
l - Step by Step or Procedure Comments 24 l
-l - Supporting Documentation of E0P Development 25 l
l - Procedure Flowchart 26 l
l - Observation Checklist 27 l
l - Debriefing Checklist 29 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
I'~1.0 PURPOSE l
~
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 I
3.1 g
Comoonent Technical Accuracy - A characteristic of the system l
g components which indicates the degree of consistency to source l
[
documents.
l' 1
I 3.2 Component Verification - The evaluation performed to ensure l
l consistency between the system component and its appropriate
[
g.
source documents.
l l
I 3.3 g
Control Room Simulator - A device which dynamically models the l
l.
g plant functions as presented in the-control room.
l
[
l 7
3.4 l
Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) - Plant procedures directing
-l l
l g
operato'r actions necessary to mitigate consequences of transients
.l and accidents that cause plant parameters to exceed reactor l.
g protection setpoints, engineered safety feature setpoints, or l
l l
other appropriate technical limits.
l I
I
.3.5 I
l Emergency Operating Procedure Guidelines (EPGs) - Guidelines that l
g
. provide technical bases for the development of E0Ps.
l l
I 3.6 g
Mock-Up - Static device (e.g., mode, photos, drawings) which l
' i portrays control rocm hardware and configuration.
l l
I i
l I
t i
l I
I l
l I
I I
i i
i 11 I
I I
g N/A
[
N/A g;
OSP-0008 lREV - 0 PAGE 2 0F 30 l
1 I
ll l
1 I
l 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.
I l
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 j
explain their step-by-step actions during a proposed scenario to
-l l
an observer / review team.
4
[
l I
4 l
1 I
I I
l I
l l
ll l-1 I
l N/A l
N/A
.ll OSP-0008 l REV
' O PAGE 3 0F 30 l
q 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
l l
4.1.1 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 l
l procedure interface evaluation.
- 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
l 4.2.1 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 l
N/A ll OSP-0008 l REV - 0 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.
l l
l l
4.4.2 Update applicable supporting E0P documentation.
l 1
I f
l 4.4.3 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~
l' method for a given validation session, evaluators who 1
4 j
are skilled in plant operations, procedures, training l
j' and test evaluation methods will be appointed.
I l
. 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
l I
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
' ~
l b.
Selection of scenarios required to satisfy I
l validation objectives to be tested l
l l
l c.
How EOPs are to be used l
i 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 l
l
-5.1.2 Preparing for Validation Trail l
7 l
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
[
l l
1.
Equipment Preparations - Evaluators will be l
.l responsbile for a'tranging for a seminar room for 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
1 -
l 3.
Personnel Preparations - Plant personnel needec for 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
l In general, the validation phase consists of the following l
1 l
activities:
' l.-
1 I
l 1.
Brief Evaluators - The evaluators ' leader shall review l
-l with the evaluators the responsibilities of each l
i 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 l
a.
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
Validation methods used for the initial, approved I
f j
l a.
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
-l
{
j 1.
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 l
N/A ll OSP-0008
[REV - 0 PAGE 7 0F 30 i
{
l I
11 I
I l
l l
Y"
~
=
..A
.G."
l l
l maximize the effectiveness of the debriefing (see l
l ).
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
during validation. Verbal explanations may be,,,I l
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
l-l 5.1.5 Resolve Discrepancies l
i I
l The Oparations Supervisor shall:
1.
I I
l 1.
Review E0P discrepancies and potential resolutions I
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
Recommend necessary training program changes to l
g c.
g the Training Supervisor.
l 5.2 I
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 S.2.1 Planning the Table-Top Method l~~
l I
l The planning phase consists of the following activities:
1.
Designate Evaluator (s) - When the table-top meth'cd has I
I g
been designated as being the most ef fective method for - 1 i
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 Purpose of conducting the validation I
g a.
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.
l Selection of scenarios required to satisfy l
g validation objectives to be tested l
j.
I g
c.
How E0Ps are to be used I
i i
I g
d.
Rules for plant personnel and evaluator behavior l
during validation l
?
i
.-1 Detection and classification of errors
.l g
e.
l l-l f.
Administration of test plan l
l I
g 5.2.2 Preparing for the Table-Top l
l I
l g
After the resources to support the table-top have been selected, the evaluator (s) will:
j l
l I
1.
Arrange for use of required E0Ps, specifications, and
(
related technical documentation.
s l
1 g
l i
g 2.
Arrange for the use of room equipped with adequate l
g surface to layout E0Ps and related documentation.
'l l
I I
I I
I Il i
I l
l N/A g
N/A ll OSP-0008 lREV - 0 PAGE 9 or 30 l
l l
l1 I
I I
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,
l the table top:
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
l b.
One-on-Crew - One member of the observer / review
-I l
team and an operating crew.
l I
I l
c.
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
Review the overall objective and technique of the l
p c.
l table-top with plant personnel who are taking l
l part in the validation l
I l
l d.
Provide the plant personnel with a copy of the I
f T
g E0Ps to be validated.
..l I
- I Review the use of the debriefing form with the
(-
g e.
g plant personnel l
1
'g f.
Provide plant personnel and evaluators with a I
'l copy of the scenarios.
l l
.l Review the event-sequences and scenarios and any l
l g.
l underlying assumptions about them.
l l
I
.g 2.
Plant personnel shall:
l l
I Use the E0Ps as the evaluator (s) lead them
[
l a.
r l
through the scenario.
1 1
I I
I I
I il i
I I
l N/A l
N/A ll OSP-0008 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
l been selected, the evaulator(s) will:
l l
l Provide the plant personnel with a copy 'of the l
l a.
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 l
I, 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 l
?'
1 I
-l l
1.
The evalustors' leader shall:
l l
l l-l a.
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
l the walk-through dith plant personnel who are l-i l
participating in the walk-through.
l I
I Assure' Attachment 6 is completed l
l c.
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
seqence(s)'and scenario (s).,
I l
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.
'l 3.
Evaluator 1 shall:
'l I
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.
Review scenario (s)
I
,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 l'
I I
l c.
Record discrepancies and problems encountered by l
l plant personnel on Attachment 2.
l f
l
-l l
d.
Ask appropriate "what if" questions
.l s
I 1-l 5.-
Evaluator 3 (if used) shall:
l l
1 l
a.
Track plant personnel usage of E0Ps.
l 1
I l
b.
Record discrepancies and problems encountered'by l
l plant personnel on Attachment 2.
-l l
1 l
c.
Coordinate A/V with videotape crew I
i 1
l d.
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 l
3.
Systems /aubsystems which are of primary importance,
-l l
secondary importance, or ' as importance in managing l
j g
the scensrio event l
l I
l 4
See Enclosure 1 for an example of a Simulator Script.-
l 1
l
.1 i
g 5.4.2 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
l procedures which should be exercised by each scenario. The l
i l
validation team will identify the steps within each l
g procedure which the oporator could follow in managing,the-l g
emergency event. A list of expected operator actions based l
i 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 l
j l
Observers / Analysts which will permit the following analyses l-g for each scenario:
l l
..l g
1.
Analysis of the operator's ability to control several g
plant parameters 1
j, 2.
Comparsion of discrete operator actions to the previously prepared list of expected operation actions
[
)
l l
g 3.
Comparsion of the time to per' form either a discrete l
g action or a process control task to previously 2
}
g established time frame standards.
l 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
l ll l
l l
l l
N/A l
N/A gl OSP-0008 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
.l simulator time.
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
l ll l
1 l
l N/A 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.
I l
I l
5.5.2 Conducting the Debriefing l
l I
l l
The debriefing should occur as soon as possible af ter the l
l emergency has been brought under control in order to l
j maximiae the effectiveness of the debriefing.
,l l
l 1.
The evaluators ' lead shall:
l l
l l
a.
Brief plant personnel on the purpose and l
l objectives for debriefing l
l l
l l
l b.
Present problems and discrepancies which they had l
l l
identified during the real event l
l l
l c.
l Present possible causes for problems l
}
j d.
I l
Present potential solutions to problems l
I l
l e.
Generate / forward discrepency forms as necessary, l
l I
l 2.
Evaluators shall:
I f
l 1
1
-l l
a.
Present other E0P problems and discrepancies l
related to the real event which also have been j
l identified.
I I
l I
l l
b.
Interview plant personnel as to possible cause(s) l l
l for problem (s) l l
l l
c.
Interview plant personnel for potential l
g solution (s) to problem (s) l l
I l
d.
Present explanation (s) of possible causes and l
l potential solutions I
l l
1 1
i I
1 1
I il i
I I
l N/A l
N/A ll OSP-0008 lREV - 0 PAGE 16 0F 30 l
i I
I il l
I 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-1 00:01:00
?!AL NO. 63, 71
!!SIV CLOSSURE Initiate ATVSl l
l 60 CRD's Fail Condition l l
1 1
l 2
00:01:09
!!AL 83 Trip 500KV Supplies Loss of l
l Off Site Powerl I
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
1 l
l i
I I
I I
l l
l l
I l
I I
i l
- l l
l l
l~
l l
l I
l l
I I
ll l
l l
l ENCLOSCRE - 1 1
PAGE 1 0F 1 ll OSP-0008 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
l b.
Is the operator actions section presented in a l
I 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
Is the procedure title descriptive of the purpose l
a.
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 1
l 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
l those used on equipment?
l t
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
d l
11 I
I l
l ATTACHMENT - 1 l
PAGE 2 0F 4 ll OSP 0008 l
REV - 0 l
PAGE 20 0F 30 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 l
- 2) Excessive 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 l
i 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
l I
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
1 l
I i
l i
I l
i l
I i
I 1
l I
I I
I I
l l
l 1
l I
1 l
I l
l
.I 1
l 1
I I
I I
1 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 I
l ATTACHMENT - 2 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
l nut!BER:
GUIDELINE NUMBER:
l I GUIDELINE PROBLEM l-l AREA:
CATEGORY:
l l
STEP STEP l
l PANEL ID:
NUMBER:
DESCRIPTION:
l l
l DESCRIPTION 1
l OF DISCREPANCY:
l l
l l
l 1
l
.I I
I I
I I
I Control Room / Simulator Difference 1
l l
l RECOM'!ENDATION TO:
l l
1 No Change Recommended Change Irivest igat e l
I l
I I
I I
I I
I I
1 l
l l
l ACTION l RESOLLTION:
l I
I l
l l
l I
l I
I I
I I
I l
'I l
.I l
l l
1 l
l I
I I
I l
l 1
l ll l
l 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 I
l ATTACH!!ENT - 3 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 I
1 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 1
I 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 I
ll l
l l
l ATTACICIENT - 3 I
PAGE 1 0F 1 ll OSP-0008 I
REV - 0 l
PAGE 24 0F 30 I
l I
Il-1 I
l
I l
l 1
I i
i ATTAC10 TENT - 4 l
SUPPORTING DOCU)!ENTATION OF E0P DEVELOP!!ENT l
1 I
I I
I l EPG STEP:
I l
I I
I I
l.,
j I
I I
l-1 I
l E0P STEP:
I 1
I 1
I I
I I
l l
I I
I I
i JUSTIFICATION OF DIFFERENCES:
l I
I i
I 1
l I
1 I
I I
I l
i E0P WRITER:
I 1
[ 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-1 I
I l
- ATTAClefENT - 5
- l --
PROCEDURE FLOWCHART l
l 1
4 I
l FOR E0P-REV l
i 1
E0P STEP CONDITIONS TO 1
PROCEDURE TRANSITION OF l
I REQUIRE PROCEDURE' TRANSITION
-1 REFERENCING / BRANCHING TO I
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 1.
I
't.
I
~
g l
.ll
.l-I l-
- l I
~l.
~
l l
i 1.
- ll l
I' l
i ATTACIC1EST '- 3 " ' I PAGE'l 0F.1' ll OSP-0008-1~
REV - 0
-I
_PAGE 26 0F 30 l
1 1
II I
I i
I I
I I
I l
l ATTACHMENT - 6 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 l
1.1 Useability l
l l
1.1.1 Level of Detail l
l 1.
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-l 3.
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?
l l
5.
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
l 1.
Did the operator appear to have problems with any of the l
l following?
l l
a.
Reading the typeface l
l b.
Reading figures and tables l
l Interpolating values on figures and cha'rts
[
c.
l d.
Understanding E0P step l
l Understanding caution and note statements e.
l f.
Understanding the organization of the E0Ps l
,_ g.
Understanding the E0P step sequence l
[
2.
Did the operator's actions indicate that he had noticed l
l emphasized items in the procedures?
l 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 Enter the branched procedure at the correct point l
c.
l d.
Exit from the given E0P at the correct branch l
1 l
1.2 Operational Correctness l
l 1.2.1 Technical Correctness l
l l
1.
Did the instructions provided to the operator appear to be l
l appropriate for the emergency conditions?
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 source paths not in the E0Ps?
l l
4.
l Were the procedure actions able to be performed on the plant at l
the designated time intervals?
.l
_l S.
Was the operator able to 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 condition?
l l
1 I
I I
I ll 1
l l
l ATTACHMENT - 6.l PAGE 1 0F 2 ll OSP-0008 l
REV - 0 l
PAGE 27 0F 30 l
l l
ll 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
l I
l l
l l
l l
i l
1 i
' I I
i l
l 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-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 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 l
1.2.2 Compatiability 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
]
l (too bulkly to hold, binding wouldn't allow them to lay flat l
i 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 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
Il i
I I
l~
A~1TACIDIENT - 7 l PAGE 2 0F 2 ll OSP-0008 l
REV 0
l PAGE 30 0F 30-l I
i ii I
I I
- m-.m m
m m
.1.
9 l
l l
RIVER BEND STATION l
l PROCEDURE (CHANGE) TECH. SPEC. REVIEW FORM l
1 I
l Ad VAJohn M TITLE Ved c4 O\\
PROC. NO. _
i l REV. NO.
O 6er.
GA P=eA l
i
-s l REASON FOR PROCEDURE (CHANGE):
~3 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 1 _
l_l Operations l_l Maintenance l_l Tech Staff l_j Chemistry l
l l_l ALARA 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
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,