ML20207C324
| ML20207C324 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1988 |
| From: | NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207C316 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8808050297 | |
| Download: ML20207C324 (20) | |
Text
t STATION PROCEDURE COVER SHEET 4 -.o A.
IDENTIFICATION Number: OP 262 Rev.
O
Title:
UNIT 1 VERIFICATION PROGRAM Prepared By: P. PRZEKOP B.
REVIEW I have reviewed the abcve procedure and have found it to be satisfactory.
TITLE SIGNATURE DATE
,5-/e? -88)
DEPARTMENT HEAD
- h. 0 Y WJ3/bf?
- t J
C.
SPECIFIC UNREVIEWED SAEETY QUESTION EVALUATION REQUIRED:
Modifies intent of procidure and cringes operation f
of systems as described in design documents.
YES [ ]
NO [ 3 (If yes, oerform written USQ determination and Safety Eva hation, and cor. tact Manager, Safety Analysis Branch to dett rmine need for Integrated Safety Evaluation.)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIRED (Adverse environmental impact)
YES [ ]
NO((
D.
SPECIFIC SAFETY EVALUATION REQUIRED Affects response of safety systems, performance of systems which may have been credited in the safety analysis or non-credited systems which may indirectly affect safety system response.
YES [ ]
NO [
(If yes, perform written Safety Evaination and contact Manager, Safety Analysis Branch to determine need for Integrated Safety Evaluation.)
E.
INTEGRATED SAFETY EVALUATION REQUIRED YES [ ]
NO [.7 F.
PROCr0VRE REQUIRES PORC/SORC REVIEW (In addition to review, items with a YES response mest be documented in the PORC/SORC meeting minutes.)
YES[d NO [ ]
8 08'~ N G.
PORC/SORC APPROVAL PORC/SORC Meeting Number H.
APPROVA AND IMPLEMENTATION The attached procedure is hereby approved, and effective on the date below:
0/ f s /t9/9p Stk+7oitfSefvfde/ Unit Superintendent Effective Date SF301/9/s/SES/87-12/lof1 P
0 7 800729 P{3 M 05000n,3 PNu
OP 262 Page 1 Rev. O UNIT 1 VERIFICATION PROGRAM Page No.
Eff. Rev.
1-7 0
1
OP 262 Page 2
=
Rev. 0 1.
PURPOSE The purpose of this procedure is to describe the verification program to be utilized for the Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs). This procedure describes the methods to be utilized to insure that the E0Ps meet the specific verification objectives described herein.
2.
APPLICABILITY This procedure applies to the Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) developed from the M111 stone Unit 1 Emergency Procedure Guidelines.
Changes to this procedure shall not be made without verifying that commitments made in Reference 3.10 are not altered.
3.
REFERENCES 3.1 Millstone Unit 1 Emergency Procedures Guidelines.
3.2 Millstone Unit 1 Plant Specific Appendix C Calculations.
3.3 Millstone Unit 1 Safety Technical Specifications.
3.4 Millstone Unit 1 FSAR.
3.5 BWR Owner's Group Emergency Operating Procedures Guidelines.
3.6 Appendixes A, B, and C of BWR EPGs.
3.7 NUREG 0899 Guidelines for the Preparation of Emergency Operating Procedures.
3.8 INPO 83-004 Emergency Operating Procedures Verification Guideline.
3.9 ACP-QA-3.02, Station Procedures and Forms.
3.10 Response to PGP Safety Evaluation, W. G. Counsil to J. A. Zwolinski, A04371 dated January 31, 1985.
3.11 ACP-QA-10.04, Nuclear Power Plant Records.
3.12 OP 263, Unit 1 Validation Program.
4.
DEFINITIONS 4.1 Verification - A performance evaluation to determine whether or not E0Ps are written correctly and technically accurate.
OP 262 Page 3 Rev. 0 4.2 Verification Methods - The various methods that will be utilized to verify the E0Ps and are as follows:
4.2.1 Quality Edit - A review performed to verify that the E0Ps reflect requirements specified in the Millstone Unit 1 Emergency Operating Procedure Writer's Guide.
4.2.2 Engineering Edit - A review performed to verify that the E0Ps reflect and implement in procedural form the information and requirements contained in Reference 3.1 "Millstone Unit 1 Emergency Procedure Guidelines".
It is also a review of Reference 3.2, Millstone Unit 1 Plant Specific Appendix C Calculations to verify they have been completed, verified and accurately reflected in the E0Ps.
- 3. 2. 3 Correspondence Edit - A review performed to verify that the E0Ps correspond to actual plant design.
4.3 Verification Objectives - The objectives that are to be demonstrated to be met as a result of applying the verification methoos to the E0Ps.
They are as follows:
4.3.1 Written Correctness - The E0Ps are written in accordance with the requirements specified in the Millstone Unit 1 Emergency Operating Procedures Writer's Guide.
4.3.2 Technical Correctness - The E0Ps are written to accurately reflect, in procedural form, the requirements of Reference 3.1, "Millstone Unit 1 Emergency Procedure Guidelines".
4.3.3 Procedural and Plant Correspondence - The E0P correspond actual plant design.
Controls and equipment
- eferenced are available, use same designation, use same units of measure and operate as specified.
4.4 Validation - A performance evaluation to determine that the actions specified in the E0Ps can be followed and implemented by Operations personnel to manage emergency conditions.
Simply stated it determines whether the E0Ps are usuable and operationally correct.
I
OP 262 Pago 4 Rev. 0 5.
RESPONSIBILITIES 5.1 Operations Supervisor - Has overall responsibility for E0P verification program.
Responsible for requestinp assistance from other departments or organizations, as needed, to perform the various reviews required by this procedure.
Also responsible for approval and implementation of resolutions identified in the verificatten process.
5.2 Verification Personnel - Respcnsible for performing reviews as requested by the Operations Supervisor in accordance with the requirements of this procedure.
Also responsible for documenting discrepancies.
5.3 Unit Superintendent - Responsible for insuring E0Ps, requiring verification, are verified prior to approving for implementation.
6.
INSTRUCTIONS 6.1 Determination If Verification Is Required The Operations Supervisor or designee will determine whether an E0P revision requires verification.
Minor revisions (typos, corrections, etc.) which do not signficantly alter the procedure do not require any additional review other then what is required by Reference 3.9, ACP-QA-3.02, Station Procedures and Forms.
If it is determined that a verification is required, as a minimum, only those sections of the E0P being revised need to receive a verification in accordance with the applicable sections of the edit checklists, OPS Form 262-2, 262-3, and 262-4.
The Operations Supervisor or designee shall document this determination on the Verification Form, OPS Form 262-1.
6.2 Determination of Verification Personnel 6.2.1 The Operations Supervisor or designee will determine if assistance is required from other departments or organizations to assist in the verification process.
OP 262 Page 5 R:v. 0 6.2.2 The Operations Supervisor or designee will request assistance, if needed, from other departments or organizations and docuraent which departments or organizations are performing the various edits on the Verification Form, OPS Form 262-1.
6.2.3 The Operations Supervisor shall document his approval on the Verification Form, OPS Form 262-1.
6.3 Performance of Verification 6.3.1 Preparation 6.3.1.1 Supervisors of the departments or organizations involved in the verification process shall designate personnel within their departments to conduct the appropr' ate reviews.
6.3.1.2 Individuals assigned to perform a Quality Edit. Technical Edit or Correspondence Edit will obtain copies of the appropriate edit checklists.
- Quality Edit, OPS Form 252-2
- Technical Edit, OPS Form 272-3
- Correspondence Edit, OPS Form 262-4 6.3.1.3 Individuals assigned to the verification process will also obtain the necessary source documents for accomplishing the verification.
6.3.2 Assessment 6.3.2.1 Individuals assigned to the verification process shall complete items 1 and 2 of the appropriate edit checklists.
OPS Form 262-2, 262-3 and 262-4.
6.3.2.2 Individuals assigned to the verification process will perform a step by step review of the E0P and compare it to the evaluation criteria listed in item 3 of the appropriate edit checklists.
i OP 2t 2 Page 6 Rov. 0 6.3.2.3 The assigned individuals will complete a response for each of the evaluation criteria listed on the appropriate edit checklists, OP3 Form 262-2, 262-3, and 262-4.
6.3.2.4 Discrepancies and comments identified in completing the edit checklists will be documented on the Discrepancy Form, OPS Form 262-5 by the assigned individuals.
6.3.3 Resolution 6.3.3.1 Supervisors of the departments involved in the verification process will review the appropriate edit checklists, OPS Form 262-2 262-3 and 262-4, and Discrepancy Forms, OPS Form 262-5.
6.3.3.2 Supervisors of the departments involved in the verification process will insure that resolutions are proposed and documented on the Discrepancy Form, OPS Form 262-5.
6.3.3.3 Supervisors of the departments involved in the verification process will forward a documentation package consisting of the appropriate edit checklists, OPS Form 262-2, 262-3, and 262-4, and Discrepancy forms, OPS Form 262-5 to the Operations Supervisor for review.
6.3.3.4 The Operations Supervisor shall review the documentation package and document has approval of the resolutions by signing the Discrepancy Form, OPS Furm 262-5.
6.3.3.5 The Operations Supervisor shall insure that all proposed resolutions are incorporated as necessary.
OP 262 Page 7 Rev. 0 6.3.4 Records The Operations Supervisor will transmit all forms associated with the verification process to the Nuclear Plant Records Facility in accordance with Reference 3.11, ACP-QA-10.04.
PP:1js 1
1 I
4 1
4 1
)
I i
f i
i
04 1/
s Iir in J-w- w FORMAPPRyFED'BY' UNIT 1 SUPERINTENDENT EFFECTIVE DATE POI:C }i"G. NO.
EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURES VERIFICATION FORM (To be completed by Operations Supervisor / Designee) 1.
E0P Number Revision Title 2.
Verification Required?
a.
Yes b.
No Complete Procedure or Sections (If No is indicated Item 3 is N/A proceed to Item 4.)
3.
a.
Department performing Qualify Edit.
b.
Department performing Engineering Edit.
c.
Department performing Correspondence Edit.
4.
Approved Operations Supervisor OPS Form 262-1 Rev. O Page 1 of 1
ldb).
1-M w f) EFFECTIVE DATE FORM APPRO UNIT' 1 SUPERINTENDENT EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURE QUALITY EDIT (To be completed by individuals performing verification.
Comments and discrepancies to be documented on Discrepancy Form, OPS Form 262-5.)
1.
E0P Number Revision Title 2.
Individual (s) Performing Quality Edit:
3.
Evaluation Criteria (Note:
The numbers following WG in parentheses indicate the Writer's Guide section in which the criteria is specified.) Complete Discrepancy Form, OPS Form 262-5 for all sections checked NO.
YES NO N/A A.
Identification Information 1.
Is the procedure title descriptive of the scope of the E0P? (WG 2.1) 2.
Does each page contain the procedure designator (EOP),
number (569-599), revision number and page number in upper right hand corner?
(WG 2.6) 3.
Is the last page marked "FINAL"? (WG 2.6) 4.
Does the title page contain the number of pages and effective revision? (WG 2.1)
B.
Format 1.
Are the following sections used in the E0Ps? (WG 3.3)
Section 1 - PURPOSE Section 2 - ENTRY CONDITIONS Section 3 OPERATOR ACTIONS OPS Form 262-2 Rev. O Page 1 of 8 f
YES NO N/A 2.
Does the E0P have a single column format for the procedure text? (WG 3.1 and WG Figure 3) 3.
Does each E0P step have a short underline in front of it for place keeping purpose?
(WG 3.2) 4.
Is section num'ering in o
accordance with the Writer's Guide? (WG 3.4 and 3.5) 5.
Is fourth level section numbering minimized?
(WG 3.5)
C.
Instructional Steps 1.
Do steps deal with only one idea or action?
(WG 4.1) 2.
4re sentences short and simple? (WG 4.1) 3.
Are operator actions specifically stated?
(WG 4.1) 4.
Are verbs used listed in Table 1 of the Writer's Guide? (WG 5.4) 5.
Are procedure steps contained on single page?
(WG 6.3) 6.
Are system, components and parts identified by common usage terminology? (WG 4.1) 7.
Are valve and equipment numbers in parentheses following word description?
(WG 5.3.4)
(i.e. Scram Air Header Vent Valve (1-IA-200)]
OPS form 262-2 Rev. O Page 2 of 8
YES NO N/A 8.
Do steps referencing Figures and Tables give location information?
D.
Notes and Cautions 1.
Are cautions and notes identified by the words "CAUTION" or "NOTE" (centered in page above caution or note? (WG 4.3) 2.
Is there a row of asterisks above and below cautions?
(WG 4.3) 3.
Is there solid lines above and below notes? (WG 4.3) 4.
Are notes and cautions placed immediately before and on the same page as the procedural content to which they apply? (WG 4.3) 5.
Are notes and cautions contained on single page?
(WG 4.3) 6.
Do the notes and cautions provide information only, not instructions? (WG 4.3) 7.
If two or more cautions or notes are used together is the word "CAUTION" or "NOTE" used before each and are the asterisks or lines before the first and alfer the last caution or note?
(WG 4.3) 8.
Do cautions denote potential hazard to equipment or personnel?
(WG 4.3)
E.
Logic Terms 1.
Do logic statements begin with the words IF, IF NOT or WHEN?
(WG 4.2)
OPS Form 262-2 Rev. O Page 3 of 8
YES NO N/A 2.
Is WHJE,N used for only expected conditions?
(WG 4.3) 3.
Is IF, used for only unexpected but possible conditions? (WG 4.3) 4.
Is the use of AND and OK
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
within the same action"~
avoided? (WG 4.3) 5.
Are the number of conditions being joined by AND four or less?
(WG 4.2)
F.
Calculations 1.
Are mathematical calculations avoided in the E0Ps? (WG 4.4)
G.
Underlining 1.
Is underlining used in only the following cases?
(WG 4.5) a.
Emphasis (i.e. cannot b3) b.
Logic terms (AN_D, OR, IF, IF NOT, WHEN, THEN) c.
CAUTION or NOTE d.
First Level Section Headings; (W.G 6.3)
PURPOSE ENTRY CONDITIONS OPERATOR ACTIONS H.
Referencing and Branching 1.
Do referenced or branched procedures contain procedure designator, number and title (in quotation marks)?
(WG 4.6)
(i.e. ONP 502 "Emert ncy Plant Shutdown")
OPS Form 262-2 Rev. O Page 4 of 8
YES NO N/A 2.
When referencing other procedures are words such as "perform" or "execute" (the referenced procedure)
"coccurrently with this procedure" used? (WG 4.6) 3.
When leaving a procedure (branching), are the words "GO T0" (the referenced procedure used? (WG 4.6) 4.
Are referenced and branched procedures in agreement with the E0Ps?
(i.e. do not conflict) 1.
Capitalization 1.
Did the following receive full capitalization?
a.
Logic Terms (WG 4.2)
NOTE and CAUTION (WG 4.3) c.
GO TO (WG 4.6) d.
FINAL (last procedure page) (WG 2.6) e.
First level section headings (WG 6.3)
PURPOSE ENTRY CONDITIONS OPERATOR ACTIONS f.
Procedure designators (i.e. E0P, OP, EPIP) g.
Engraved names on panel placards and alarm windows (i.e. APR AUTO BLOWDOWN A/C INTERI.0CK) (WG 4.7)
OPS Form 262-2 Rev. O Page 5 of 8
.,o YES NO N/A h.
Control Switch Positions (WG 4.8)
(i.e. AUTO, NORMAL, START, STOP) 2.
Did the following receive initial capitalization?
a.
Plant System titles (WG 4.7) (i.e. Low Pressure Coolant Injection) b.
Component titles (i.e. Core Spray Pump) c.
Procedure titles (i.e. RPV Level Control) d.
Words such as:
Figure, Table, Attachment (WG 4.9.2) e.
Column Headings (WG 4.9.2 & 6.3) f.
Labels for graph axes (i.e. Suppression Pool Temperature) g.
Second, Third and Fourth Level Section Headings (WG 6.3)
J.
Figures (Graphs) 1.
Are tables and figuies placed following the applicable procedure step or on an adjacent page?
(WG 4.9.4) 2.
Is the figure readable?
(WG 6.6) 3.
Are grid lines of graphs at least 1/16" apart and numbered grid lines bolder?
(WG 6.6)
OPS Form 262-2 Rev. O Page 6 of 8
s..
YES NO N/A 4.
Are graph axes labels parallel to the axes?
(WG 6.5) 5.
Is the figure number above the figure? (WG 6.6) 6.
Is the figure title below-the figure? (WG 6.6)
K.
Tab'ses 1.
Are tables placed following the applicable procedure step or on an adjacent page?
(WG 4.9.4) 2.
Are column headings provided and centered within column?
(WG 6.6) 3.
Are ;a;<2tontal lines placed abo,.o
,c.> below column head 1<.;.
(WG 6.6) 4.
Is N/A entered in table if no entry was required?
(WG 6.6) 5.
If there is a table number and title is it above the table? (WG 6.6) 6.
Is the table aligned vertically and horizontally?
(WG 6.6)
L.
Attachments 1.
If attachments are used are they numbered in accordance with 4.3 of the Writer's Guide? (WG 4.3)
M.
Acronyms and Abbreviations 1.
Are acronyms, abbreviations and symbols used listed in Table 2 of the Writer's Guide?
(WG 5.6)
OPS Form 262-2 Rev. O Page 7 of 8
..o YES NO N/A N.
Punctuation 1.
Are colons used to indicate that something is following?
(WG 5.3) (i.e. while executing the following steps:)
2.
Are commas used after conditional phrases?
(WG 5.3)
(i.e. IF boron injection is required,...)
0.
Arrangement and Reproduction 1.
Are page margins (WG 6.2) a.
1 inch binding edge?
inch opposing edge?
2.
Is there arople spacing (WG 6.3) a.
between headings and text?
b.
between paragraphs?
(WG 6.3) 3.
Is the text single line spaced? (WG 6.3) 4.
Foldout pages, reduced pages, and rotated pages are not used:
(WG 6.2, 6.7, 6.9) 5.
Are reproduced copies legible? (WG 7) 6.
Are entry condition E0Ps on pink paper and contingency E0Ps on yellow paper? (WG 7) nPS Form 262-2
- v. O i
rage 8 of 8
._=
Y
/- Pb w
[
BV'061T 1 SUPERINTENDENT p')S~% lw/n EFFECTIVE DATE PORC MTG. N0.
~
FORM APP EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURE TECHNICAL EDIT (To be completed by individuals performing verification.
Comments and discrepancies to be documented on Discrepancy Form, OPS Form 262-5.)
9 1.
E0P Number Revision Title 2.
Individual (s) Performing Technical Edit:
3.
Evaluation Criteria:
Complete Discrepancy Form for all items checked NO.
YES NO N/A a.
Have differences between the BWR Owner's Group Emergency Operating Procedure Guidelines and Millstone Unit 1 Emergency Procedures Guidelines been documented and evaluated?
b.
Do evaluations of the differences between the BWR Owner's Group Emergency Operating Procedure Guide and Millstone Unit 1 Emergency Procedure Guidelines justify the differences?
c.
Are E0P steps in agreement with the Millstone Unit 1 Emergency Procedures Guidelines?
d.
Are their any additions to the E0Ps that alter the intent of the Millstone Unit 1 Emergency Procedures Guidelines?
e.
Have all Plant Specific I
Appendix C Calculations been independently reviewed?
f.
Are the results from the Plant Specific Appendix C Calculations l
been properly incorporated into the E0Ps?
l OPS Form 262-3 Rev. 0 Page 1 of 1 l
.o
.s C %. ld/H
/- 29. W FORM APPRUVED BY unit 1 SUPERINTENDENT lhEFFECTIVEDATE PORC MTG. NO.
EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURE CORRESPONDENCE EDIT (To be completed by individuals performing verification.
Comments and discrepancies to be documented on Discrepancy Form, OPS Form 262-5.)
1.
E0P Number Revision Title 2.
Individual (s) Performing Correspondence Edit:
3.
Evaluation Criteria:
(Note:
This criteria must be evaluated by a plant walk-through review. ) Complete Discrepancy Form, OPS Form 262-5 for all sections checked NO.
YES NO N/A a.
Are controls, equipment and indications referenced in the E0P available?
b.
Do the controls, equipment and indications referenced in the E0P use the same designation?
c.
Do the units of measure specified in the E0P correspond with the same units of measure on plant instrumentation.
l d.
Do the controls, equipment and l
indications operate as indicate l
by the E0Ps.
l l
OPS Form 262-4 l
l Rev. O Page 1 of 1 l
.4
. S } 19 lh l-PD-yu FORM APPRQifED 'BY TNIT~ l SUPERINTENDENT EFFECTIVE ~DATE PORC MTG. NO.
'..'ERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURE DISCREPANCY FORM E0P Number Revision Title Step Number Discrepancy / Comment Resolution Approved l
Operations Supervisor I
j OPS Form 262-5 Rev. O Page 1 of 1 l